On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 12:21:26AM +0100, david reid wrote: > Guys, lets remember that we're planning for having more than just > openssl support, so while it's useful to consider it's not the only > thing we need to think about. > Fair point - I keep forgetting there are alternatives ;)
> The idea was to have APR_ESSL mean that there was a problem that was ssl > related - then you call apr_ssl_socket_error() to get an os/library > specific code. apr_ssl_socket_error_string() would then get you a string > representation. I don't want to add any more error codes as they will > likely be different and not all applicable across all implementations. > Works for me. vh Mads Toftum -- `Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall
