apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: io abstractions
Date Wed, 28 Jun 2006 19:18:55 GMT
david reid wrote:
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>> On 6/28/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>>> The only problem I have with an apr_write, is that it's way to easy 
>>> to mis-use
>>> apr_write when you ment to use apr_ssl_write explicitly, or 
>>> apr_registry_write,
>>> or any thousands of other applications.
> Hmm, either I haven't explained myself properly or you don't get it.

Apparently not, did the page jump under me?

>>> _write, _read are methods, so they should be decorated with an 
>>> object.  Typing
>>> _io really doesn't take that long for the coder using our iol 
>>> abstration, no?
> BTW, please stop referring to it as iol abstraction - it's not iol - 
> it's plain old io. iol implies other aspects for me and while I think 
> they're cool they'd live on top of this layer.

Ok, when I totally +1'ed all of this new functionality, I begged that the
performance of explicit methods would not be impacted.  If someone runs solely
with a socket, there is no reason to add the overhead of abstractions.  If it's
a file, I don't want the code looking to see if it aught to deal with a console.
(Ok, sorta bad example, since there is no difference on unix.)

I'm hoping we are on the same page that we have an abstration layer, and still
offer explicit methods.  Please correct me if I'm lost.


View raw message