Although I agree, with your patch in spirit, if apr_thread_join is never
called, your patch -can- leak handles like a sieve :(
Did we ever define that apr_thread_create() must be partnered with
an apr_thread_join? If not, it seems we need a clever way to mark
the apr_thread_t HANDLE member as
At 12:26 PM 7/30/2004, Graham Leggett wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
4. our APR_HAS_XXX_LDAPSDK macros are entirely bogus, still,
on unix.
Explain? (so I can fix).
Here's my philosophy. First, we don't set up the HAS_BAR_LDAPSDK 0
values after setting the HAS_FOO_LDAPSDK 1 value. So
Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2004, Joe Orton wrote:
I'd hoped some friendly buckets guru would step in here :) I guess if
it's correct to solve this at bucket-level, the solution is to make
socket_bucket_read() check whether the socket is non-blocking on each
call, and temporarily set the
Hi!
On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 08:07:23PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Although I agree, with your patch in spirit, if apr_thread_join is never
called, your patch -can- leak handles like a sieve :(
Did we ever define that apr_thread_create() must be partnered with
an apr_thread_join?
At 12:11 PM 8/1/2004, Graham Leggett wrote:
David Reid wrote:
So I see. I'll tag roll APR RC5 later on tonight and hopefully as soon as
apr-util is patched for apr-config I'll be able to roll.
Would it be possible to include the recent LDAP changes in v1.0.0? They fix
some LDAP fooness that
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I would be +1 to simply remove auth_ldap from APR 1.0, and reintroduce
the entire feature in the new APR 1.1 (which we can start development
on immediately.) And that presumes httpd 2.1/2.2 will depend on the
1.1 release of apr-util.
I hate to hold up 1.0 any
Graham Leggett wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I would be +1 to simply remove auth_ldap from APR 1.0, and reintroduce
the entire feature in the new APR 1.1 (which we can start development
on immediately.) And that presumes httpd 2.1/2.2 will depend on the
1.1 release of apr-util.
I hate to
It looks like it is just the Microsoft SDK that doesn't support
ldap_url_parse(). All of the other known LDAP SDK's support family of
ldap_url_parse() API's. It would have been nice to get rid of it
completely, but at least it is minimized to one platform SDK.
Brad
Brad Nicholes
Senior
David Reid wrote:
The main fooness is in apr_ldap_url.c. Can we not mark this code as
deprecated in v1.0, which should hopefully warn alert coders that the
code should not be used, and can be pointed out to coders who are
asleep otherwise if they moan.
How much work is needed to fix it? What
Brad Nicholes wrote:
It looks like it is just the Microsoft SDK that doesn't support
ldap_url_parse(). All of the other known LDAP SDK's support family of
ldap_url_parse() API's. It would have been nice to get rid of it
completely, but at least it is minimized to one platform SDK.
It seems
10 matches
Mail list logo
