Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of jorton@redhat.com designates
 66.187.233.31 as permitted sender)
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:11:15 +0000
From: Joe Orton <jorton@redhat.com>
To: dev@apr.apache.org
Subject: Re: svn commit: r602176 - /apr/apr/trunk/network_io/unix/sockaddr.c
Message-ID: <20071211101115.GA5642@redhat.com>
Mail-Followup-To: dev@apr.apache.org
References: <20071207184730.046351A9832@eris.apache.org>
 <20071210090718.GA6065@redhat.com> <475D8C0E.7020800@rowe-clan.net>
 <20071210195547.GA23734@infiltrator.gizzard.com>
 <20071210203411.GA28175@redhat.com> <475DAD92.4020204@rowe-clan.net>
 <20071210215841.GA29536@redhat.com> <475DBE68.7080808@rowe-clan.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <475DBE68.7080808@rowe-clan.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor,
 Berkshire, SL4 1TE, United Kingdom.
  Registered in UK and Wales under Company Registration No. 03798903
  Directors: Michael Cunningham (USA), Brendan Lane (Ireland),
 Matt Parson (USA), Charlie Peters (USA)

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