httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David Reid" <dr...@jetnet.co.uk>
Subject Re: PATCH: APR buffered I/O
Date Mon, 03 Apr 2000 21:41:31 GMT
So now you want to reopen the discussion about what belongs in APR again???

:-))

d.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Stein" <gstein@lyra.org>
To: <new-httpd@apache.org>
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 10:46 PM
Subject: Re: PATCH: APR buffered I/O


> I'm all for nuking buffered support. Why keep around (and maintain!) what
> isn't needed?
>
> [shades of proxy support arise...]
>
> The only factor for keeping it in would be the hypothetical future clients
> of APR. Would they *need* the support? Beats the crap outta me. I would
> think "probably". However, a better solution than buffered files may be
> bundling BUFF.
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>
> On Mon, 3 Apr 2000 rbb@apache.org wrote:
> > This patch brings up an interesting question.  Do we even want to
support
> > buffered I/O in APR?  We supported it originally because Apache needed
it
> > originally.  Since then, Apache has removed ALL buffered I/O support,
and
> > the support in APR has fallen by the way-side.
> >
> > Just asking.
> >
> > Ryan
> >
> > On Mon, 3 Apr 2000, Greg Stein wrote:
> >
> > > Watch out for sign extension in ap_ungetc() !!
> > >
> > > It is quite possible that somebody passes in \xFF and the assignment
to
> > > ->ungetchar will sign-extend to -1.
> > >
> > > The assignment should look something like:
> > >
> > >   thefile->ungetchar = (unsigned char)ch;
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > -g
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, 3 Apr 2000, Jon Travis wrote:
> > >
> > > > Attached are some patches to get ungetc() working in APR for
> > > > non-buffered
> > > > file descriptors.  In addition, I believe I fixed a bug with the
> > > > ap_fgets() under
> > > > Unix (it looks like Win32 has it correct).  I have tested out all
these
> > > > changes,
> > > > but please poke a careful eye into it anyway.. ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Also, I noticed that ap_seek() has arguments in reverse order from
what
> > > > UNIX
> > > > says that they should be.  Perhaps we should change this for
consistancy
> > > > sake?
> > > >
> > > > -- Jon
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
____________________________________________________________________________
___
> > Ryan Bloom                        rbb@apache.org
> > 406 29th St.
> > San Francisco, CA 94131
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
> >
>
> --
> Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
>
>


Mime
View raw message