apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: Time for apr-util-1.4.0?
Date Thu, 10 Feb 2011 19:24:30 GMT

On Feb 10, 2011, at 1:55 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:

> I use APU-1.4 exclusively and so far have not had any issues with
> it doing what I expect or want, at least for its interaction with
> httpd trunk... that's admittedly not a review, just a data
> point.
> 
> Let me see what else I can do to get this going...
> 

BTW: this includes using the crypto stuff... The API would
be easier if providers were in APR. ;)

> On Feb 10, 2011, at 1:13 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> 
>> On 2/10/2011 8:27 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> What's holding us up for a release of apu-1.4.0?
>> 
>> There have been calls for API review, nobody answered them.  I'd vote -1
>> at this point in time to ship unreviewed API additions and have already
>> pointed out function argument signature flaws that must be fixed.  (Turns
>> out apr_dbd was used as the 'model', but apr_dbd itself was flawed in
>> that respect from its introduction, and should be corrected at 2.0).
>> Also the apr_crypto_device_ctx should never be passed, it should become
>> part of the apr_crypto_ctx structure itself.  Stack bytes are much worse
>> than heap bytes.  And I haven't seen clear feedback of original critics
>> that their concerns were answered in the most recent refactorings.
>> 
>> Turning the question around, what are you waiting for from apu-1.4.0 and
>> are you willing to add your review?
>> 
> 


Mime
View raw message