Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
From: "Sander Striker" <striker@apache.org>
To: "Aaron Bannert" <aaron@ebuilt.com>
Cc: <dev@apr.apache.org>
Subject: RE: DCEthreads (was Re: Pools in threads)
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 09:22:01 +0200
Message-ID: <JLEGKKNELMHCJPNMOKHOGEFBEDAA.striker@apache.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-reply-to: <20010716000219.L23346@ebuilt.com>
Importance: Normal

>>> And, it would add 3.5 million lines of code to APR.  
>> 
>> Nah. It would add the lines to add thread cancellation.  The
>> 3.5 million LOC is the _entire_ dce rpc codebase. Only part
>> of that is the dce threads library. And, I believe there are
>> some old dce/rpc team members in our midst who could know how
>> this all fit together. I could be wrong though.
> 
> [warning: tangent -- i changed the subject appropriately]
> 
> I must admit that it sounds tantalizing, but I have a comment and a
> question:
> 
> - It appears that the Free DCE package quoted above is under the GPL
>   and is therefore incompatible with the Apache License.

Yes.  However, I wasn't suggesting using or copying code from the
free dce package.  You can merely examine it and decide whether
implementing thread cancellation in such a way is something we want
in APR.  Then, you write your own implementation.

Furthermore, I would like to compare the Free DCE threads implementation
with the DCE/RPC threads implementation.  Then pick the best design
decisions from both.

> - What is meant by "*emulated* on top of POSIX threads"? What are the
>   tradeoffs, if any, compared to a implementation that is native to
>   the OS?

Sander