> > > Just to add my (inflation-adjusted) 2 cents worth. > > I may be way off on this but it sounds like you're attempting to move the > > complexity > from your > > code down into the APR layer. > > Well, yea. That is the whole story behind APR. Some folks in the Apache httpd > project > think APR is a bad idea because it introduces excessive complexity. From their > perspactive, POSIX is a perfectly acceptable API and if an OS doesn't support > POSIX then > Apache shouldn't bother running on that OS :-) > > > I know that you can sometimes avoid a huge mess by making a > > small change in a lower layer of code however I'd question whether > > modifying a > general-purpose > > library for what seems to be a highly specific one off problem is a good > > idea. Sometimes > you > > just have to bite the bullet and duplicate-munge your code .... > > G. > > Yes, I completely understand and have the same concern. Thought I'd offer up > a patch in > case there was common interest. If not, then I understand and will patch my > copy of APR to > do what I need. > > I am still interested in Roy and Ryan's assertion that this can be solved > with filters. I > don't see how this problem can be fixed with filters. >
One other comment... this is not really a 'one off' solution as you imply. socket iol can be used to work with the secure socket API in many SSL libraries (including OpenSSL, IBM's GSKIT and MS's secure socket API). Sander Striker had a use for the socket iol in Samba. So there are a few uses for it other than my specific use. Bill
