httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: PATCH: APR buffered I/O
Date Mon, 03 Apr 2000 22:43:52 GMT
Why support buffered I/O if we don't need it? :)

David Reid wrote:
> 
> 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/
> >
> >
> 


-- 
===========================================================================
   Jim Jagielski   [|]   jim@jaguNET.com   [|]   http://www.jaguNET.com/
                "Are you suggesting coconuts migrate??"

Mime
View raw message