Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4B9A7488.4090503@rowe-clan.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:06:16 -0600
From: "William A. Rowe Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US;
 rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bert Huijben <bert@qqmail.nl>
CC: dev@apr.apache.org
Subject: Re: svn commit: r921306 -
 /apr/apr/branches/1.5.x/file_io/win32/open.c
References: <20100310111828.EDDEF2388900@eris.apache.org>
 <00c601cac1d1$81f408e0$85dc1aa0$@qqmail.nl>
In-Reply-To: <00c601cac1d1$81f408e0$85dc1aa0$@qqmail.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 3/12/2010 4:48 AM, Bert Huijben wrote:
> 
> Why do we even have this block?

Why, indeed?

> CreateHardLinkA is only implemented in Windows 2000 and later, which implies unicode support. 
> (Why support an ansi version of an API that is only implemented on unicode capable systems?)

Because they can, and because there are local code page users who have done things such
as this, and breaking this functionality (especially resulting in non-compilation) for
the legacy branch is impolite.  I'm personally fine with declaring APR 2 unicode (utf-8)
only as of apr 2.0, but would like to see others' thoughts on this.

I don't think failing to load on NT SP6/Win 9x is rude any longer, though.  Simply
attaching such machines to the public internet is something that should be actively
discouraged, if not scorned and shamed.