On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 12:50 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group <ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com> wrote: > >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: William A Rowe Jr [mailto:wr...@rowe-clan.net] >> Gesendet: Dienstag, 20. Februar 2018 22:29 >> An: httpd <dev@httpd.apache.org> >> Betreff: Re: Binary Breakage (was: svn commit: r1824592 - >> /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS) >> >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 2:57 PM, Ruediger Pluem <rpl...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> > >> > On 02/20/2018 09:39 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: >> > >> >> Moving a member in a well-defined structure doesn't fall into this >> >> generally accepted change (expanding the length of a struct.) >> >> Consider the shm array change doesn't fall into the "it is just >> >> a longer struct" example. >> > >> > Can you please give me a pointer which shm array change you are >> referring to? >> >> r1824504 > > Thanks. > > What particular breakage are you referring to in the above revision? > As far as I can tell, the bug does not get fixed for modules that do not use > the new field, but it doesn't break them.
Again (I think I commented and this was pointed out on list) that mod_cluster is broken. However, mod_cluster is broken in the sense that it rearranges members of the array, and without knowledge of the future size of the struct, it ultimately fails to succeed. Modules like mod_ftp and mod_cluster and mod_wsgi and ... these that assume the role of core functions and believe they know the size of a future structure, they can't be kept portable. So if earlier comments about mod_cluster are correct, I am taking this exception as a mutual-failure scenario of compatibility. Therefore the proxy balancer scoreboard, for display purposes, should not cause faults (although the data won't be correct beyond existing field sizes.) And, for manipulation, no module that deals in the affected fields will still function. If you believe that mod_proxy_balancer exists solely for httpd-project implemented providers, this is not an issue; I continue to vote no position on the untenable abuse of the 2.4 ABI. Cheers, Bill
