Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Message-Id: <44A299D5.3235.00AC.0@novell.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 15:01:46 -0600
From: "Brad Nicholes" <bnicholes@novell.com>
To: "david reid" <david@jetnet.co.uk>,
	"Jr. William A. Rowe" <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Cc: <dev@apr.apache.org>,"Justin Erenkrantz" <justin@erenkrantz.com>
Subject: Re: io abstractions
References: <449EBF09.7040402@jetnet.co.uk>	
 <6cca3db30606251223j13aed525le2ce9406bb8deb7b@mail.gmail.com>	
 <449EEB49.8070801@jetnet.co.uk>	
 <5c902b9e0606280646g232cf03dka15151df9a83dc31@mail.gmail.com>	
 <44A29156.3050008@jetnet.co.uk> <44A295E3.90900@rowe-clan.net>
 <5c902b9e0606280934n51577971jeb06465c3fdcca23@mail.gmail.com>
 <44A2D2E1.7060807@jetnet.co.uk><44A2D2E1.7060807@jetnet.co.uk>
 <44A2D61F.5030704@rowe-clan.net>
In-Reply-To: <44A2D61F.5030704@rowe-clan.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

  Forgive me for jumping in late and I have to admit that I haven't
looked at the API's yet, but why do we need a new API?  Shouldn't the
apr_socket abstraction carry enough information so that apr_write()
would be sufficient and do the right thing?

Brad

>>> On 6/28/2006 at 1:18 PM, in message
<44A2D61F.5030704@rowe-clan.net>, "William
A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> 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.
> 
> Bil