> From: Sander Striker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > From: Ryan Bloom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 09 July 2002 15:46
>
> >> From: Ryan Bloom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>> From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>> On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 12:11:59PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote
> From: Ryan Bloom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 09 July 2002 15:46
>> From: Ryan Bloom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 12:11:59PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
parameters. I would like to fix that mistake for apr_pol
> From: Ryan Bloom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 12:11:59PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > > parameters. I would like to fix that mistake for apr_poll now, as
> long
> > > as we are changing the implementation.
> >
> From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 12:11:59PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > parameters. I would like to fix that mistake for apr_poll now, as
long
> > as we are changing the implementation.
>
> Getting back to this conversation for a brief second, I th
> From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 09 July 2002 09:44
> On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 12:11:59PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > parameters. I would like to fix that mistake for apr_poll now, as long
> > as we are changing the implementation.
>
> Getting back to this conversation
On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 12:11:59PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> parameters. I would like to fix that mistake for apr_poll now, as long
> as we are changing the implementation.
Getting back to this conversation for a brief second, I think the
additional parameter with the fd count is unneeded (but f
At 11:47 AM 7/7/2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:
On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 12:11:59PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> I vote to fix the API so that these kinds of mistakes can't happen in
> the future.
+1, let's fix the API now. (I also strongly dislike input/output parameters.)
Microsoft's Win32 API was built
On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 12:11:59PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> I vote to fix the API so that these kinds of mistakes can't happen in
> the future.
+1, let's fix the API now. (I also strongly dislike input/output parameters.)
-aaron
> From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 12:11:59PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > I vote to fix the API so that these kinds of mistakes can't happen
in
> > the future. I made a lot of mistakes when I designed APR (even
though
> > Manoj tried to convince me I
On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 12:11:59PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> I vote to fix the API so that these kinds of mistakes can't happen in
> the future. I made a lot of mistakes when I designed APR (even though
> Manoj tried to convince me I was wrong). One of those mistakes is
> having functions use a
> From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 08:32:18AM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > Because if Apache can't get it right, then I am assuming that nobody
> > else can either. I had originally coded it to use *nsds just as you
> > describe below, and it didn't pa
On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 08:32:18AM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> Because if Apache can't get it right, then I am assuming that nobody
> else can either. I had originally coded it to use *nsds just as you
> describe below, and it didn't pass any tests, because throughout the
> code people were passing
> From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Fri, Jul 05, 2002 at 08:47:32PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > This also creates a support library for APR, this is basically just
a
> > series of functions that APR can use internally to get the job
> > done. Since wait_for_io_or_ti
13 matches
Mail list logo
