At 08:41 AM 8/4/2005, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: >It strikes me that the sha1 and md5 implementations are inconsistent, >it seems that in apr 2.0 we should probably provide the same xlate >handle to a given sha1_ctx_t as we have done for md5_ctx_t. I'm not >sure we can make such a transition before an apr 2.
And in fact, apr_sha1_ctx_t is quite transparent, so any change to introduce the same apr_xlate_t object into that structure -must- wait for 2.0 :-/ Bill
