On 1/3/07, Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/3/07, Joe Orton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. is having an ENOTIMPL _set_xlate really an excusable regression? Yes. We already do that for !APR_HAS_XLATE case, so callers need to handle that anyway.
assert(there's no necessary initialization for _set_xlate to perform when using the OpenSSL MD5 implementation), so shouldn't it be an empty function that returns APR_SUCCESS? If the assertion is not known to be correct then we need to research a bit further, with the goal that we either return APR_SUCCESS (no initialization needed) or avoid the use of OpenSSL MD5 at build time when we know the _set_xlate() must be called. Make sense?
