Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 93644 invoked from network); 11 Nov 2006 23:39:42 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 11 Nov 2006 23:39:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 43431 invoked by uid 500); 11 Nov 2006 23:39:53 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 43105 invoked by uid 500); 11 Nov 2006 23:39:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 43094 invoked by uid 99); 11 Nov 2006 23:39:51 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 11 Nov 2006 15:39:51 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [216.130.100.178] (HELO vbn.0005210.lodgenet.net) (216.130.100.178) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 11 Nov 2006 15:39:37 -0800 Received: from [10.2.2.4] (helo=[192.168.1.101]) by vbn.0005210.lodgenet.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 1Gj2RM-0006f8-00 for dev@apr.apache.org; Sat, 11 Nov 2006 17:39:12 -0600 Message-ID: <45565F21.4070105@rowe-clan.net> Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 17:39:13 -0600 From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060913) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@apr.apache.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r442492 - /apr/apr/branches/1.2.x/network_io/unix/sockets.c References: <20060912065935.9BDA11A981A@eris.apache.org> <20060913123006.GA32224@redhat.com> <20060919161731.GA15564@redhat.com> <45103012.6030803@rowe-clan.net> <45111C98.1060702@apache.org> <20060920112359.GA3729@redhat.com> <451190B2.9070205@rowe-clan.net> <20061111100742.GA29645@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20061111100742.GA29645@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Joe Orton wrote: > > Gah, just realised I never dealt with this, sorry :( > > Since this is really an attempt to make a new API guarantee, it is > something that can only be done in a minor version bump, and would need > to be done for the other implementations too. Well, I'm a little torn. I don't mind offering the 'feature' of not wasting the memory on failure (now that I know it isn't consistent across platforms already). You are half right though - They can't test for 1.2 for example and expect the API to behave one way or the other. In 1.3 of course, we can add 'promises' on that behavior.