apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From r..@covalent.net
Subject Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src/support httpd.exp
Date Sat, 02 Dec 2000 02:37:00 GMT

> I know what the issue is we are trying to solve.  So, are you suggesting
> that each APR type will have such an object?  If we are only going to do
> this for sockets and locks (already doing it for socks), then I would
> prefer to just stick with apr_put_os_*.  If we are going to do this for
> more APR types, then the apr_os_make_* functions do make more sense,
> assuming we can find some way to make the apr_get_os_* functions make
> sense.

I have thought about this a bit more, and I think we actually want both
apr_put_os_* and apr_os_make_* (although I would use apr_make_os_* for
consistency).  The reason we want both, is that they have different
uses.  In the perchild MPM, I really do want apr_put_os_socket, because I
don't have a full socket, I have a Unix Domain Socket, so I don't want to
fill out the whole os specific socket structure.  Same thing goes for
apr_socket_from_file, we can't fill in the whole structure.

So, IMHO we want apr_put_os_* for all APR types and apr_os_make_* only for
those types that have conditions like socket.

Does that make sense?


Ryan Bloom                        	rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131

View raw message