On Wed, 26 Nov 2008, Phil Blundell wrote:
> It isn't completely unavoidable: one could create a new option, say
> ARES_OPT_IPV6_SERVERS, with a corresponding new member at the end of struct
> ares_options, to be used by new applications. (Obviously, despite the name,
> you could in fact pass both v4 and v6 servers through this interface.)
> Since the applications need to change anyway to pass in v6 servers, this
> doesn't seem like it would be much of a problem. Old sources and binaries
> would go on passing ARES_OPT_SERVERS and filling in the old "servers"
> member, which would continue to work just fine.
Thinking even further, we could probably even rename the old ARES_OPT_SERVERS
to ARES_OPT_SERVERS_OLD and introduce the new ARES_OPT_SERVERS with a new bit
(and do similar with the 'servers' and 'nservers' firleds) and then not break
ABI (as existing apps will continue to run), but recompiles will automatically
use the new way...
Or am I wrong?
-- / daniel.haxx.seReceived on 2008-11-26