On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 08:56:14 -0400 Jeff Trawick <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 13, 2015, at 8:04 AM, Yann Ylavic <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > It seems that the implementation is not that broken actually. > > > > > > One can still have the add semantic with insert() in 1.5.x by > > > using the appropriate compare function and > > > apr_skiplist_insert_compare(), that is, a function that does not > > > return 0 when entries are equal, but rather <0 for LIFO or >0 for > > > FIFO (and stability) semantics. > > > > > > > Well... :) > > > > It abuses the idea of the compare function :) > > > > Whatever though; I've already wasted enough energy on > > this whole issue. I just don't want httpd to suffer the > > stagnation obvious within APR. > > > > > Exactly what do you mean by "stagnation"? Not agreeing with you on > what is API breakage? Or rather, not enjoying the same 'flexibility' (read: wild west) in API definition within a library project, v.s. an application (and httpd surely is more restrictive than a pure 'application' with no integration points/api)? What you might ascribe as being 'stagnant', most of us here would view instead as simply being 'methodical'. If APR 'the project' has fallen down, it was probably on passing through an API that really wasn't all that vetted before it was shipped in a .0 release? For perspective about library/component architects & developers treating downstream developers badly, my favorite coding-hell-p0rn channel has to be https://twitter.com/postwait - Nobody else liveblogs the pain of coding against other peoples sh!t quite like Theo ... and it reminds me that whatever headache I'm up against today is far from unique :)
