apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Orton <jor...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: svn commit: r602176 - /apr/apr/trunk/network_io/unix/sockaddr.c
Date Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:11:15 GMT
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 04:32:08PM -0600, William Rowe wrote:
> Joe Orton wrote:
>>
>> The previous behaviour makes far more sense, and it would not be 
>> unreasonable for applications to rely on it.  In fact it looks like the 
>> APR_IPV6_ADDR_OK flag is exactly a case which relies on that behaviour, 
>> and is now presumably broken.
>
> Interesting.  So, if we modify this to honor only the case of
> APR_IPV4_ADDR_OK plus the APR_INET6 family, it would satisfy you?

Not really, it violates the existing interface constraints:

"APR_IPV4_ADDR_OK ... only valid if family is APR_UNSPEC"

I'd rather just see a new flag added alongside the existing 
APR_IPV4_ADDR_* flags to make it explicit that this is a new and very 
different interface guarantee, APR_IPV6_ADDR_V4MAPPED maybe.

joe

Mime
View raw message