On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Joe Orton wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 10:12:17AM -0800, Ryan Bloom wrote: > > So, I continue to wonder, how is it useful to have this in a _portable_ > > run-time, when the concept isn't at all portable? > > Will you also be removing threads, IPv6, and all the other stuff which > isn't implemented on every single platforms APR supports? Come on. Those features are supported on most of the platforms we support. The one we are talking about is _UN_supported on most of the platforms we support. We have always had the concept of APR_ENOTIMPL, for features that couldn't be implemented on a given platform. But, that reutrn code was meant to be the exception, not the rule. In this case, we have a feature that APR uses internally (and that nobody has asked for externally), but that we have exposed to the outside world, even though it is a completely non-portable concept. Most platforms just can't do this. Ryan
