I agree with all your suggestions and will return APR_ENOTIMPL if we find that SOICATMARK is undefined in the 0_9 branch (with the appropriate comment.) Anyone with other concerns? Otherwise I'll commit later tonight.
Bill At 12:55 PM 10/16/2003, Jeff Trawick wrote: >William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > >>Including Jeff and Brian's efforts for their respective platforms, I'm >>suggesting >>the apr_socket_atmark() for backport to 0.9. Adjusted patch is attached. > >one concern: > >When I was tweaking the atmark logic recently to support AIX and z/OS, I >considered adding in > >#ifdef SIOCATMARK > logic >#else > return not-implemented >#endif > >However, I figured that as this is APR pre-1.0 we can stand to leave it alone >for a while and see where else it blows up. Maybe that "blow up" will be the >hint necessary to make it work correctly on that platform, or maybe it will >simply mean that it can't be supported on that platform and we really need the >not-implemented path. > >But for the 0_9_BRANCH, I think we should be more protective of the build and >not break the build if SIOCATMARK isn't found or available. Presumably most of >the existing software that is bound to 0_9_BRANCH does not care about atmark, >and we have some notable applications (httpd) whose users need to be able to >upgrade with no build surprises. So I suggest tweaking the code in 0_9_BRANCH >to return not-implemented if the symbol isn't found. As far as such a change >in HEAD: Roy-style shrug.
