Akins, Brian wrote: > On 9/25/08 2:24 PM, "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hmmm... -0.9, it's private because the connection mechanics are private. >> Core transport is part of core. >> >> What was the rational? > > Bcs lots of modules have things like this. Using mod_dialup as an example:
Of course [duh!] But it folds back to another issue... for a long time we've chattered that holding the apr_file_t to the designated resource, opened before-or-during the directory_walk and forever tested from that point on using it's handle instead of it's name would be optimal. If we finally s&*t and get off the pot to add this in 2.4 / 3.0, and this was determined by core which -also- opened the target file (opening it appropriately to enable sendfile, of course), then where does that leave us? Do we still seek this new api call? Bill
