From: Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>
Message-Id: <199701160319.WAA23376@shado.jaguNET.com>
Subject: Re: and now back to snprintf (fwd)
To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 22:19:12 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970115195112.9875J-100000@alive.ampr.ab.ca> from
 "Marc Slemko" at Jan 15, 97 08:00:27 pm
Content-Type: text
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com

Marc Slemko wrote:
> 
> What are you suggesting your wrapper around sprintf() for?  I was under
> the impression that you were suggesting avoiding portability problems with
> our snprintf() implementation by simply using a wrapper around sprintf()
> instead, but looking at what you are saying now perhaps that is a
> mistaken impression?
> 

Sounds like it... I recall awhile ago we were considering a switched
approach to the snprintf-availability problem. We had:

	1. If the OS has snprintf() already, use it
	2. If not, then use our ap_snprintf()
	3. If for some reason #2 doesn't work, then
	    we would provide a USE_SPRINTF_AS_SNPRINTF
	    option as a last resort.

All my comments were about #3... I'm not really comfy with #3
since it opens us up to notices like "If you compiled Apache
using their USE_SPRINTF_AS_SNPRINTF option -blah blah blah-" :)
If we do #3, then it should be the braindead version used in
DB
-- 
====================================================================
      Jim Jagielski            |       jaguNET Access Services
     jim@jaguNET.com           |       http://www.jaguNET.com/
                  "Not the Craw... the CRAW!"