Joe Orton wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 09:03:54AM -0500, William Rowe wrote:
Ping since the thread tied here, and Joe's looking for an answer...
Eh? Everything you say below is reasonable. But that doesn't help me
understand why you say the proposed API is "unportable" nor to resolve
your veto. What question do you need anybody else to answer?
Again: can you propose an alternative apr_dso_open_ex() API so I can
understand your point?
What I'm saying is that you *must not* have any special platform
knowledge to use apr_dso_open_ex(). Which means that picking from all
of the flags and mapping the dlopen API as 'our new apr_dso_open' isn't
the right solution.
Can you define a few problems you want to solve, and we will map them
to appropriate combinations of flags, and determine if they can be
1) supported, 2) ignored, 3) not implemented across our platforms?
Bill
