Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <3BFE902E.6080501@stason.org>
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 02:06:38 +0800
From: Stas Bekman <stas@stason.org>
Organization: Hope, Humanized
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.5) Gecko/20011012
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@apr.apache.org
Subject: Re: no replacement for ap_spawn_child's functionality?
References: <3BFE07ED.9090101@stason.org>
 <20011123174630.7846846DFD@koj.rkbloom.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ryan Bloom wrote:

> On Friday 23 November 2001 12:25 am, Stas Bekman wrote:
> 
>>I'm porting Apache::SubProcess Perl/XS module to mod_perl 2.0 and after
>>checking the existing APR's API I have found that the functionality
>>existing in ap_spawn_child from 1.3.x has gone. Now you can only run a
>>program/script from the spawned process.
>>
>>Any reason for removing this support? I'm probably not aware of some
>>hidden portablity issues, but by comparing ap_spawn_child from 1.3.x
>>with apr_proc_create() from APR isn't the change is as simple as
>>replacing execve() call with func() call after copying apr_proc_create()
>>into some different function (of course the args should be different)?
>>
> 
> Windows doesn't support creating a new process without running a new
> program.  I have been looking at creating fork() on Windows, but it is 
> incredibly non-trivial.

so how is this solved in 1.3.x? Or is it not used for portable modules?
I see (grep) that at least mod_rewrite and http_log use it in core.

_____________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman             JAm_pH      --   Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/      mod_perl Guide   http://perl.apache.org/guide
mailto:stas@stason.org  http://ticketmaster.com http://apacheweek.com
http://singlesheaven.com http://perl.apache.org http://perlmonth.com/