On Feb 10, 2011, at 1:55 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > I use APU-1.4 exclusively and so far have not had any issues with > it doing what I expect or want, at least for its interaction with > httpd trunk... that's admittedly not a review, just a data > point. > > Let me see what else I can do to get this going... >
BTW: this includes using the crypto stuff... The API would be easier if providers were in APR. ;) > On Feb 10, 2011, at 1:13 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > >> 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? >> >
