Re: file_handle_cache branch ready for review

2012-01-09 Thread Julian Foad
Hyrum K Wright wrote: > Branko Čibej wrote: >> On 09.01.2012 14:56, Hyrum K Wright wrote: >>> Until we can change the minimum required version of APR, it just >>> isn't worth the hassle. >> [...] >> For something like the filehandle cache, which is not a functional >> requirement, we can the

Re: file_handle_cache branch ready for review

2012-01-09 Thread Hyrum K Wright
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Branko Čibej wrote: > On 09.01.2012 14:56, Hyrum K Wright wrote: >> Until we can change the minimum required version of APR, it just isn't >> worth the hassle. -Hyrum > > We can change the minimum required version of APR any time we want, > really. Our API versionin

Re: file_handle_cache branch ready for review

2012-01-09 Thread Branko Čibej
On 09.01.2012 14:56, Hyrum K Wright wrote: > Until we can change the minimum required version of APR, it just isn't > worth the hassle. -Hyrum We can change the minimum required version of APR any time we want, really. Our API versioning guidelines aren't /that/ set in stone. Sure, we'd have to a

Re: file_handle_cache branch ready for review

2012-01-09 Thread Hyrum K Wright
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Julian Foad wrote: > Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: > >> Ivan Zhakov wrote: >>>    In your branch your introduce handles to handles. >>> APR does the same. Is that unreasonable? >>>  4. It seems current implementation reuses file handles even error is >>>  occurred when wor

Re: file_handle_cache branch ready for review

2012-01-09 Thread Julian Foad
Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: > Ivan Zhakov wrote: >>   In your branch your introduce handles to handles. >> APR does the same. Is that unreasonable? >> 4. It seems current implementation reuses file handles even error is >> occurred when working with the handle. It's potentially dangerous from >> my

Re: file_handle_cache branch ready for review

2012-01-08 Thread Stefan Fuhrmann
On 03.01.2012 10:01, Ivan Zhakov wrote: On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 22:46, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: For interested parties, Work on said branch is done so far and I think it is generally ready for being merged into /trunk. But it is certainly a good idea to give it some detailed review, in particul

Re: file_handle_cache branch ready for review

2012-01-03 Thread Ivan Zhakov
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 22:46, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: > For interested parties, > > Work on said branch is done so far and I think > it is generally ready for being merged into /trunk. > But it is certainly a good idea to give it some > detailed review, in particular with regard to side- > effects