apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Reid <da...@jetnet.co.uk>
Subject Re: veto on addition of ssl, evp code
Date Wed, 16 Apr 2008 03:06:36 GMT
Graham Leggett wrote:
> Joe Orton wrote:
>> So again, I guess I presumed back then, and would still now, that
>> these problems were understood and were going to be addressed.  But
>> that didn't actually happen; the problems are still there.  Again,
>> that is the basis of my veto.
> Yep, it is still there, and that is because I have been devoting about
> 10 hours a day every day weekends included (this last weekend excluded
> thank goodness) to the httpd and apr code over the last three weeks, and
> that was still not enough to get everything done.
> In that time the session stuff got a major refactoring - again. The
> documentation was written and rewritten, specifically from the point of
> view of somebody who had never seen this stuff before, and this had the
> knock on effect of even more rewritten and refactored code.
> Then I started slowly and tentatively committing the code, and rpluem
> did a thorough evaluation, which had to be analysed, acted on and
> committed. Then Roy presented some issues, so that pushed out the work
> for a few days more.
> At the same time, two external deadlines were looming, and they could
> not be pushed out any longer, so I have had to devote my attention back
> to those. The apr and httpd job is not done, and I have no intention of
> leaving the job undone until it is truly complete. I would have seen no
> point in even trying to get this stuff introduced if the intention was
> to not do it properly.
> I made the conscious decision to do the httpd stuff before the apr stuff
> because the apr stuff builds clean, and the httpd stuff does not. Httpd
> takes priority right now for that reason. I have every intention of
> addressing the apr concerns. I absolutely cannot do so this week.
>> I am sorry if I failed to do enough to help explain or discuss the
>> problems last year, and as a result of that the veto seems unduly harsh.
> As I said, they are valid concerns, and I have every intention of
> addressing every one. All I ask is some patience: the apr stuff needs a
> lot of work, not the least of which is the Microsoft Crypto
> implementation. There would be little point in going to all this effort
> if the code only ever worked on one platform.

The intention was always to have an MS implementation, but lack of time
held me back. Then the prospect of having access to MSDN meant I delayed
until that was complete (2 weeks ago) so I've not done as much as I
should have. I'll likely have some time to help out on this in the
coming month, but we should figure out where to develop before anything

It should probably be in a seperate module somewhere and probably should
be developed that way, as I've suggested several times. One of the
problems with that approach is we don't have a way of a module adding
abritrary error codes - something that has been discussed a few times
but never resolved :-(

> Regards,
> Graham
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> !DSPAM:16,48053566124071905617490!

View raw message