1 Aug
2011
1 Aug
'11
7:38 p.m.
Hello,
On 8/1/11 6:31 PM, Henning Westerholt wrote:
On Monday 01 August 2011, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
if it is just about one function with
no external dependencies (I guess
nathelper version does not have any), better add it in core in
ip_addr.{c,h}. Probably it is used in modules_s/nathelper as well.
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- http://www.asipto.com
Kamailio Advanced Training, Oct 10-13, Berlin: http://asipto.com/u/kat
http://linkedin.com/in/miconda -- http://twitter.com/miconda
2011/8/1 Henning
Westerholt<henning.westerholt(a)1und1.de>de>:
Hi Iñaki,
i don't think so. But you could simply add a new small library, there are
several small ones like dtrie or shm_regexp. ok, understand. I think we should not introduce
two functions with
similar names and the same behaviour in two modules. Even worse, both
use different implementations (table matching vs. ragel parser). So one
commit should be reverted.
I agree.
A generic is_rfc1918 function in ipops would be
nice, but the nathelper
module also needs this test internally. What about move one of the
parsers to the library dir, and then just including it from both
modules?
It would be nice. Is there an already existing library file in which
such function would fit well?