On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:52:23AM -0500, Preethi Natarajan wrote: > On Wed, 16 Nov 2005, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote: > > >I'm still not sure how much sense apr_parse_addr_port_protocol() makes > >though, it doesn't look like something that belongs in APR. I'll test > > Colm, apr_parse_addr_protocol() = apr_parse_addr_port() + abitlity to > parse for transport protocol. I could have added the extra functionality > inside apr_parse_addr_port() itself. Instead, I created a new function > becoz I needed a different function signature to accommodate the protocol > and did not want to modify all existing calls (not sure how many) to > apr_parse_addr_port() due to the new signature. > > As I see it, _prootocol() alone should suffice since it is backward > compatible with the old Listen syntax. We can retain the old name to this > new function, but this will involve adding an extra argument to the > existing calls to apr_parse_addr_port(). > > Any suggestions?
I don't think it belongs in APR at all. There is no standard mechanism for identifying a L3 protocol in a Listen block. I don't think it'll do for APR to invent one arbitrarily. Better that each application handle it in whatever means they deem appropriate. httpd's particular listen syntax is entirely irrelevant to APR :-) -- Colm MacCárthaigh Public Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
