apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From r..@covalent.net
Subject Re: apr_poll inconsistency
Date Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:42:10 GMT

My own opinion Brian, is to choose an implementation you like, and make
that a standard.  If that means we clear the apr_poolfd_t, then cool, if
not, that's cool too.  If you make the choice, and don't want to change
on Unix, I'll do it.


On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Brian Havard wrote:

> I've noticed that some implementations of apr_poll clear the apr_pollfd_t
> they're given, requiring reapplication of apr_add_poll_socket()s, and some
> don't.
> Apart from being inconsistent, it's a problem for me because the
> implementation I wrote for OS/2 doesn't clear the list but doesn't prevent
> duplicates either so when an app re-adds after an apr_poll() it results in
> duplicates in the list (it's just an array of descriptors). ApacheBench
> (ab) on OS/2 is currently broken because of this but I'm not sure what the
> correct fix is.
> I'd like to see consistent behaviour from apr_poll() on all platforms but
> which? My own preference is to not clear the list & therefore not require
> repeated apr_add_poll_socket() calls. This would require the select based
> implementations to copy their fd_sets before calling select().
> Thoughts?
> -- 
>  ______________________________________________________________________________
>  |  Brian Havard                 |  "He is not the messiah!                   |
>  |  brianh@kheldar.apana.org.au  |  He's a very naughty boy!" - Life of Brian |
>  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

View raw message