apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Trawick <traw...@attglobal.net>
Date Fri, 29 Jun 2001 13:15:54 GMT
Aaron Bannert <aaron@ebuilt.com> writes:

> Hi All,
> sorry to rekindle this fire, but I want to get this settled and move on.
> In my previous posts I said that I do not see why there are both
> APR_CROSS_PROCESS and APR_LOCK_ALL semantics in APR's lock
> routines. Instead I'd like to see APR_LOCK_ALL go away, and
> APR_CROSS_PROCESS to provide unconditional cross-process locking
> regardless of the underlying platform.
> The problem is that an APR_CROSS_PROCESS lock will behave differently
> depending on the platform implementation, and this goes against the
> "portable" part of APR.

I don't have a problem with this.  Sorry for being stupid before :)

Jeff Trawick | trawick@attglobal.net | PGP public key at web site:
             Born in Roswell... married an alien...

View raw message