apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [patch 0.9] apr_socket_atmark() proposed for backport
Date Thu, 16 Oct 2003 19:35:00 GMT
I agree with all your suggestions and will return APR_ENOTIMPL if we find that
SOICATMARK is undefined in the 0_9 branch (with the appropriate comment.)
Anyone with other concerns?  Otherwise I'll commit later tonight.

Bill

At 12:55 PM 10/16/2003, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>>Including Jeff and Brian's efforts for their respective platforms, I'm suggesting
>>the apr_socket_atmark() for backport to 0.9.  Adjusted patch is attached.
>
>one concern:
>
>When I was tweaking the atmark logic recently to support AIX and z/OS, I  considered adding
in
>
>#ifdef SIOCATMARK
>  logic
>#else
>  return not-implemented
>#endif
>
>However, I figured that as this is APR pre-1.0 we can stand to leave it alone for a while
and see where else it blows up.  Maybe that "blow up" will be the hint necessary to make it
work correctly on that platform, or maybe it will simply mean that it can't be supported on
that platform and we really need the not-implemented path.
>
>But for the 0_9_BRANCH, I think we should be more protective of the build and not break
the build if SIOCATMARK isn't found or available. Presumably most of the existing software
that is bound to 0_9_BRANCH does not care about atmark, and we have some notable applications
(httpd) whose users need to be able to upgrade with no build surprises.  So I suggest tweaking
the code in 0_9_BRANCH to return not-implemented if the symbol isn't found.  As far as such
a change in HEAD: Roy-style shrug.



Mime
View raw message