> On Dec 29, 2015, at 11:28 AM, Yann Ylavic <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: >> In a sep thread on dev@apr, OtherBill appears to be trying to >> determine the "right" name for the APR impl... maube we should >> wait to see what it's decided on there and we can follow >> suit. > > OK, although we won't be able to use APR's functions until we require > (at least) APR-1.6.x. > Maybe a follow up patch/backport could later "#define ap_casecmpstr[n] > apr_whatever" when available? >
Right. I was just thinking we'd use whatever APR uses but substitute 'ap_' for the 'apr_', as norm. >> >> PS: What determines "abusive" usage? > > When used to compare something which is not a HTTP token or a scheme > (eg. config parameters). > As I see it, the valid usage is against remote/untrusted data known to > be defined in POSIX/C locale only... IMO, anything we check regarding config directives (like all the proxy params) are also candidates for using "our" function. We *know* our config directives are ASCII.
