From: "Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2001 12:05 PM
> my point of the [reducto-ad-juvenile-conclusion] comments > above were to say, well, if you have the same names, but > different functionality, why would you want to limit > the [apr] functionality to that of the least-functional > api? Because APR MUST BE USEFUL ON ALL SUPPORTED PLATFORMS. > ...tell you what, i will write up an API proposal and > morph some code to an apr api. less talk, more code :) That would help the discussion and simply call them remote pipes. > so, your point is noted, and my question is, is it enough to > stop apr from doing it [NT-style namedpipes]? Unless it will be provided to other users, at least through Samba or some other means that users _may_ configure if they like, then yes, this stops apr from doing it. Bill
