On Sun, Jul 13, 2025 at 2:32 PM Daniel Sahlberg <daniel.l.sahlb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Den sön 13 juli 2025 kl 14:52 skrev Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org>: > > > On 13. 7. 25 12:40, Graham Leggett wrote: > > > On 12 Jul 2025, at 22:27, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote: > >... > > >> So here I am, 10 years later, throwing this proposal in the mix: > > >> Let's make Serf truly asynchronous by getting rid of the blocking > > >> name resolver. By "getting rid of", I mean adding support for an > > >> asynchronous replacement such as, for example, c-ares. The real > > >> culprit is actually APR with its blocking resolver calls, but it > > >> shouldn't be too hard to work around that apr_sockaddr_info_get. > >... > I think it depends a bit on how much this would change the API in APR. > > It feels like a good idea to add this to APR, since it might be useful for > other projects as well. > The *original* vision for APR was "portable runtime". Deal with the things that were different across platforms. Haul those differences into a uniform API. At some point, that got corrupted into "grab bag of utility APIs that have nothing to do with portability" (think: database and LDAP APIs) Using c-ares or unbound, as a configuration option makes more sense, and means that we don't have to bounce our dependencies to a recent APR. ... should the APR community want to build this in, then that could be a third option for an async DNS resolver (c-ares, unbound, apr). I'm +1 for anybody that wants to add async resolve into serf. That "synchronous fault" is a very good point, Brane. Cheers, -g
