I've noticed that we do very little to handle pipes correctly in
apr_os_file_put().
Would it make sense to introduce APR_FILE_PIPECHECK to ask
apr_os_file_put() to first check an apr_file_info_get() of the handle, and
set the flags correctly if this is a pipe device (e.g. pass this flag for
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Would it make sense to introduce APR_FILE_PIPECHECK to ask
apr_os_file_put() to first check an apr_file_info_get() of the handle, and
set the flags correctly if this is a pipe device (e.g. pass this flag for
apr_file_open_stdin/out/err when
I just don't get this. It seems trivial.
Why aren't we porting apr_strftime, Mladen?
FWIW... I tossed my 15 minutes at this today and I have no extra time
remaining this week. I won't commit the file code till I have time to
thoroughly digest it, and deadlines loom. I'll try to commit it over
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: dev@apr.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 6:43 AM
Subject: [PATCH] WIN32 implementation of apr_poll_revents_get()
Consider this piece of code, where essentially a server poll() on its
socket,
waiting for any client connections,
What is exactly the problem with the getsockopt() function?
My implementation is slightly different from yours. I use the getsockopt() function only when WSAGetLastError()returns WSAENOTCONN.
By the way, why in your implementation don't you test the return of getsockopt()?
Also, I considered
