httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <ad...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: [RFC] InodeEtag option
Date Thu, 01 Mar 2001 18:32:59 GMT
From: "Dietz, Phil E." <PEDietz@West.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 11:50 AM


> No one has replied.  Any opinions ?

Sorry, my own vote is #2.  It retains a higher degree of compatibility with old binaries


> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [SMTP:wrowe@rowe-clan.net]
> > Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 3:17 PM
> > To: new-httpd@apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [RFC] InodeEtag option
> > 
> > From: "Rodent of Unusual Size" <Ken.Coar@Golux.Com>
> > Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 3:01 PM
> > 
> > 
> > > "Dietz, Phil E." wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > - the allow_options_t size increased to a long because all 8 bits
> > > > of char were in use.
> > > 
> > > Ouch.  I think that has killed changes to Options in the past.
> > 
> > So do we
> > 
> > 1. bite the bullet and increment the mmn?
> > 
> > 2. add more_options as a long at the end of the structure, increment
> >    the mmn, and perhaps some authors get away with ignoring the bump?
> > 
> > Bill
> 


Mime
View raw message