Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Errors-To: <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Message-ID: <054401c113c9$e2c32a80$93c0b0d0@roweclan.net>
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
To: "Aaron Bannert" <aaron@ebuilt.com>, <dev@apr.apache.org>
Cc: <dev@apr.apache.org>
References: <20010720103053.C12411@ebuilt.com>
 <01072109093205.10451@koj.rkbloom.net>
 <00e101c11204$cc5842b0$93c0b0d0@roweclan.net>
 <0107210955170A.10451@koj.rkbloom.net>
 <033a01c11398$18e98b40$93c0b0d0@roweclan.net>
 <20010723102400.R12411@ebuilt.com>
 <03f801c113a1$b27551a0$93c0b0d0@roweclan.net>
 <20010723154401.A28176@ebuilt.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] APR thread updates and associated httpd-2.0 changes
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 17:46:11 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

From: "Aaron Bannert" <aaron@ebuilt.com>
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 5:44 PM


> Quick implementation question. I've got this working as described above
> under UNIX, but I'd like to do this correctly and I've run into a small
> issue.
> 
> I'm not seeing a reason for having apr_thread_info_t in the first place,
> and I think we should just override apr_thread_t with the data we need.
> It's already private, and OS2 is already doing it this way. Are there
> any reasons I wouldn't just do it the same way? We would end up with
> something like this:

Hmmm... since it is private, I don't suppose there is a potential problem.

I'm fine, either way.  Anyone seeing anything around the corner we've missed
with using the same apr_thread_t to both the creator and created threads?