On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 04:32:08PM -0600, William Rowe wrote: > Joe Orton wrote: >> >> The previous behaviour makes far more sense, and it would not be >> unreasonable for applications to rely on it. In fact it looks like the >> APR_IPV6_ADDR_OK flag is exactly a case which relies on that behaviour, >> and is now presumably broken. > > Interesting. So, if we modify this to honor only the case of > APR_IPV4_ADDR_OK plus the APR_INET6 family, it would satisfy you?
Not really, it violates the existing interface constraints: "APR_IPV4_ADDR_OK ... only valid if family is APR_UNSPEC" I'd rather just see a new flag added alongside the existing APR_IPV4_ADDR_* flags to make it explicit that this is a new and very different interface guarantee, APR_IPV6_ADDR_V4MAPPED maybe. joe
