> > --On Thursday, January 9, 2003 1:07 PM -0600 "William A. Rowe, Jr."
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > No, as I original proposed, httpd-2.2 will target APR 1.0. In
> > > fact, httpd-2.2 won't even be released until APR hits that magic
> > > number. All the old cruft deprecated over th
Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --On Thursday, January 9, 2003 1:07 PM -0600 "William A. Rowe, Jr."
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > No, as I original proposed, httpd-2.2 will target APR 1.0. In
> > fact, httpd-2.2 won't even be released until APR hits that magic
> > number. A
At 05:02 PM 1/9/2003, Brad Nicholes wrote:
>The original problem that caused us to have to type cast is the fact
>that our compiler complains about the type mismatch between void* and
>unsigned long. How does this resolve that issue? It still looks like I
>am going to get a type mismatch.
The co
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 05:02:10PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> At 03:43 PM 1/9/2003, Greg Stein wrote:
>...
> >No. *YOU* have tried to stick to it. The versioning rules don't support this
> >position. APR hasn't gone final, so it isn't bound to any contract.
>
> I am not the only one who
At 03:43 PM 1/9/2003, Greg Stein wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 02:26:50PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> We are waiting on only one thing for APR 1.0, the full set of versioning
>> API functions. I don't know where this stands, and I know Greg was
>> full of ideas/designs. I'd like to se
At 03:43 PM 1/9/2003, Greg Stein wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 02:26:50PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>> Because 0.9, for a while, will inherit the renaming
>> going on for 1.0, any 1.0 code that doesn't use new features can still be
>> compiled (but won't be binary compatible) with 0.9
The original problem that caused us to have to type cast is the fact
that our compiler complains about the type mismatch between void* and
unsigned long. How does this resolve that issue? It still looks like I
am going to get a type mismatch.
Brad Nicholes
Senior Software Engineer
Novell, Inc.,
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 02:26:50PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> We are waiting on only one thing for APR 1.0, the full set of versioning
> API functions. I don't know where this stands, and I know Greg was
> full of ideas/designs. I'd like to see some feedback on this.
The versioning mec
We are waiting on only one thing for APR 1.0, the full set of versioning
API functions. I don't know where this stands, and I know Greg was
full of ideas/designs. I'd like to see some feedback on this.
>That can't work. httpd 2.0 needs the ability to work against a stable release
>of APR. Hen
> IMHO, the proper thing to do is to branch off APR from where 2.0.43
> went off, call that API 1.0. Apply relevant fixes as needed (bumping
> versions based on the version rules - i.e. filepath_encoding bumps
> the minor). Then, start on APR 2.0 with removal of deprecated
> functions and we
--On Thursday, January 9, 2003 1:07 PM -0600 "William A. Rowe, Jr."
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No... as Jeff reminded us, APR 0.9.x must retain backward-compat.
No, our version rules were never meant to be enforced prior to 1.0.
(The versioning rules are perfectly clear on this.) People only wa
--On Thursday, January 9, 2003 2:20 PM -0500 Jeff Trawick
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Silly me. I thought that Apache 2.0 would use APR 0.9.x and Apache
>= 2.1 would switch to APR 1.0.
There was a thread a few weeks ago where we realized that this would
be impracticable. If httpd 2.0 only used
At 12:28 PM 1/9/2003, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>--On Thursday, January 9, 2003 11:17 AM -0500 Jeff Trawick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>yuck...
>>
>>move Sander's tag back or back out the change to APR until the
>>window just prior to 1.0?
>
>As has been pointed out, APR 1.0 must maintain backw
Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --On Thursday, January 9, 2003 11:17 AM -0500 Jeff Trawick
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > yuck...
> >
> > move Sander's tag back or back out the change to APR until the
> > window just prior to 1.0?
>
> As has been pointed out, APR 1.0 must mai
At 11:44 AM 1/9/2003, you wrote:
>William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>>In that case... what about a trick (I believe) Ben Laurie taught us?
>>Using a typedef for clarity:
>>
>>typedef void*(*apr_atomic_casptr_fn_t)(unsigned long* mem, unsigned long cmp,
>>unsigned long with);
>>
>>#define apr_atomic_ca
--On Thursday, January 9, 2003 11:17 AM -0500 Jeff Trawick
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
yuck...
move Sander's tag back or back out the change to APR until the
window just prior to 1.0?
As has been pointed out, APR 1.0 must maintain
backwards-compatibility with what we're using right now for httpd.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
In that case... what about a trick (I believe) Ben Laurie taught us?
Using a typedef for clarity:
typedef void*(*apr_atomic_casptr_fn_t)(unsigned long* mem, unsigned long cmp,
unsigned long with);
#define apr_atomic_casptr ((apr_atomic_casptr_fn_t)(atomic_cmpxchg))
In t
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>For something completely different, once this is released, we are stuck
>with the api...
>
>#define APR_FILEPATH_ENCODING_UNKNOWN 0
>#define APR_FILEPATH_ENCODING_LOCALE 1
>#define APR_FILEPATH_ENCODING_UTF8 2
>APR_DECLARE(apr_status_t) apr_filepath_encoding(int
"William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 07:00 PM 1/7/2003, you wrote:
> >Sander Striker wrote:
> >
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>I tagged the tree with STRIKER_2_0_44_PRE2. The tag consists
> >>of APACHE_2_0_BRANCH and apr/apr-util HEAD. If you feel that
> >>something should not be in here, p
{Trimming this to @apr for this bit of discussion.}
At 10:16 AM 1/8/2003, Brian Pane wrote:
>On Wed, 2003-01-08 at 07:15, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>> Just an observation reviewing the apr/includes/ changes... I don't like the
>> look of this code;
>>
>> +#define apr_atomic_casptr(mem,with,cmp
On Wed, 2003-01-08 at 07:15, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Just an observation reviewing the apr/includes/ changes... I don't like the
> look of this code;
>
> +#define apr_atomic_casptr(mem,with,cmp) (void*)atomic_cmpxchg((unsigned long
> *)(mem),(unsigned long)(cmp),(unsigned long)(with))
>
>
At 07:00 PM 1/7/2003, you wrote:
>Sander Striker wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I tagged the tree with STRIKER_2_0_44_PRE2. The tag consists
>>of APACHE_2_0_BRANCH and apr/apr-util HEAD. If you feel that
>>something should not be in here, please let me know ASAP.
>
>What about the change in argument types f
22 matches
Mail list logo
