Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 09:15:12PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
I have no problem implementing this feature, but do it right (which may
mean not using apr_socket_t), so that it is portable. We have enough
people who have asked for this feature, that not implementing it is kind
of stupid, but please, please, please, don't write the API such that it
absolutely can't work on Windows. That completely removes the goal of
APR. We have tried hard not to create functions that can't be written
on one of our platforms. Please don't add a type of communication that
isn't portable, that isn't useful in a portable library.
I think the biggest problem is that we (at least myself) don't know
what type of API would work for Win32. If someone with knowledge of
how this might work on Win32 could describe an API, I think we can
come up with an implementation in Unix. Whenever someone cares
enough to implement the bits in Win32, they can add it.
And, +1 to the "not implementing it is kind of stupid" as we've had
this debate way too many times for my liking. -- justin
If any of you guys are at Defcon, I'd be happy to discuss this.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html
Available for contract work.
