apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Trawick <traw...@attglobal.net>
Subject Re: [PATCH] apr_lock.h update to remove/fix CROSS_PROCESS vs LOCKALL
Date Tue, 03 Jul 2001 19:02:47 GMT
Justin Erenkrantz <jerenkrantz@ebuilt.com> writes:

> > > This could give the non-threaded users of APR even more reason to 
> > > specify "--without-threads" when configuring - which they should be 
> > > doing in the first place.
> > 
> > yes. And we want recompiles of APR, no?
> If you have a non-threaded app, you should use a non-threaded APR.
> That's what makes sense to me, at least.  -- justin

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.

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

View raw message