Hi Henrik,
At 00.22 27/08/2006, Guido Serassio wrote:
Tomorrow morning I will try to define a complete test suite, still I
don't have found a rule of how this diabolic function prototype works ... :-)
I have completed the tests, and this is the result:
On Sun, 2006-08-27 at 12:17 +0200, Guido Serassio wrote:
Hi Henrik,
At 00.22 27/08/2006, Guido Serassio wrote:
Tomorrow morning I will try to define a complete test suite, still I
don't have found a rule of how this diabolic function prototype works ...
:-)
I have completed the tests,
Hi Robert,
At 12.21 27/08/2006, Robert Collins wrote:
On Sun, 2006-08-27 at 12:17 +0200, Guido Serassio wrote:
Hi Henrik,
At 00.22 27/08/2006, Guido Serassio wrote:
Tomorrow morning I will try to define a complete test suite, still I
don't have found a rule of how this diabolic function
sön 2006-08-27 klockan 20:21 +1000 skrev Robert Collins:
Or we could require openSSL 9.8.x?
For that part of the code yes. It's not normally needed, and it's fine
if it's not compiled for all OpenSSL versions.
These lines of code exists mainly for being able to decrypt the SSL
traffic using
On Sun, 2006-08-27 at 21:00 +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
I like the intention of this patch but:
* I don't think we should be messing around with everything before
we've at least -released- Squid-3 (And it pains me to say this,
because _I_ want to start taking as much of a knife to the
On Sun, Aug 27, 2006, Robert Collins wrote:
I'll hold it in a branch indefinately then. If we get some good traction
this coming weekend - the bug-fixing-fest - I will be much happier about
it sitting in a branch for a month, maybe two, than if we dont.
Oh, it'll happen. It'll be useful if we
On Sun, 2006-08-27 at 21:24 +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Its a good goal. The trouble is that you're creating new APIs just by
refactoring. It might be easy to change the API(s) at the point
you've
done the refactoring but I don't think it'll be so easy to do later on
as other code is
Hi Henrik,
At 14.22 27/08/2006, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
sön 2006-08-27 klockan 20:21 +1000 skrev Robert Collins:
Or we could require openSSL 9.8.x?
For that part of the code yes. It's not normally needed, and it's fine
if it's not compiled for all OpenSSL versions.
These lines of code
sön 2006-08-27 klockan 20:48 +0200 skrev Guido Serassio:
I have published a patch with a configure check into bug #1716:
http://www.squid-cache.org/bugs/attachment.cgi?id=1198.
What is your opinion ?
see bug.
Regards
Henrik
signature.asc
Description: Detta är en digitalt signerad
Looks quite nice I think.
And while I agree with Adrian that perhaps we should try to not do
additional refactoring and API changes in Squid-3.0 I do not think this
kind of things should be sitting in a private branch. If it's finished
and looking good but not a candidate for 3.0 then it's a good
Why is HttpReply/Request (HttpMsg subclasses) using manual reference
counting by HTTPMSGLOCK/UNLOCK macros instead of automatic reference
counting by RefCount?
I find this design quite error prone, especially considering that
several of the LOCK/UNLOCK pairs is crossing code boundaries. One
11 matches
Mail list logo
