On 2/10/2011 8:27 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > What's holding us up for a release of apu-1.4.0?
There have been calls for API review, nobody answered them. I'd vote -1 at this point in time to ship unreviewed API additions and have already pointed out function argument signature flaws that must be fixed. (Turns out apr_dbd was used as the 'model', but apr_dbd itself was flawed in that respect from its introduction, and should be corrected at 2.0). Also the apr_crypto_device_ctx should never be passed, it should become part of the apr_crypto_ctx structure itself. Stack bytes are much worse than heap bytes. And I haven't seen clear feedback of original critics that their concerns were answered in the most recent refactorings. Turning the question around, what are you waiting for from apu-1.4.0 and are you willing to add your review?
