apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From <...@covalent.net>
Subject Re: [PATCH] apr_lock.h update to remove/fix CROSS_PROCESS vs LOCKALL
Date Tue, 03 Jul 2001 19:37:20 GMT

> that makes sense to me too for my own purposes, but
> 1) before long I suspect some folks will want/need a single shared
>    library version of APR which works with multiple APR apps
>    and it won't just be "want" because they think it will be nicer to
>    have one build of APR... it will be "need" because different
>    dynamically-loaded code will have to use the same copy of APR*
>    (*maybe gstein could chime in here... some months back there was a
>    discussion of why single shared library of APR was so important)
> 2) even if, back to the Apache example, we use the prefork MPM, we may
>    have a module which uses threads; I've been told there are threaded
>    modules for Apache 1.3...; presumably we'd want such modules to
>    work with APR with Apache 2.0
> I'm a bit surprised that none of the folks who were around when
> CROSS_PROCESS vs. LOCKALL was invented have participated in the
> discussion.  I think I'm at least as concerned with that as with
> losing a lock flavor.

I am the person who introduced all of that.  To be honest, I can't track
all the e-mail anymore.  I now follow what I have time to follow, and get
involved with things I feel strongly about.  For stuff I don't have strong
opinions about, I tend to not get involved, because I just don't have the
time.  Plus, when I introduced it, we were coding on Linux only.  I don't
know that we have information of any platforms where a CROSS_PROCESS lock
isn't LOCKALL, but I was nervous about it when I wrote the code.  And, I
was using an older version of Linux, so threads were great back then.
It's possible this isn't really an issue.  I just don't know.  :-){


Ryan Bloom                        	rbb@apache.org
Covalent Technologies			rbb@covalent.net

View raw message