On Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 1:39 PM Graham Leggett wrote:
>
> How about this?
Works for me, the splitting/factorization I made in my (reverted)
commit shouldn't be that bad, and then apr_json_object_set_ex()
shouldn't be far from apr__json_object_set() ;)
Thanks for the JOSE work anyway, looks very i
On 01 Sep 2018, at 13:06, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>> Looking at 1839779 and 1839755, both of these need to be reverted as they
>> break RFC compliance with respect to the JSON RFC and JOSE RFCs (I’m -1 on
>> these changes).
>
> There is probably another solution, see below.
>
>>
>> Please can you
On Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 11:53 AM Graham Leggett wrote:
>
> On 31 Aug 2018, at 19:56, yla...@apache.org wrote:
>
> Author: ylavic
> Date: Fri Aug 31 17:56:40 2018
> New Revision: 1839779
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1839779&view=rev
> Log:
> apr_json: follow up to r1839755: preserve for
On 31 Aug 2018, at 19:56, yla...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: ylavic
> Date: Fri Aug 31 17:56:40 2018
> New Revision: 1839779
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1839779&view=rev
> Log:
> apr_json: follow up to r1839755: preserve formatting when decoding object
> valueT
>
> The object key-
