apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ryan Bloom" <...@covalent.net>
Subject RE: otherchild.c
Date Wed, 23 Jan 2002 14:45:33 GMT
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2002 at 01:16:51PM -0800, Jon Travis wrote:
> > Couple quickies:
> >
> > Shouldn't otherchild.c be moved from misc/unix to threadproc?  It
> > have the apr_proc_* prefix.
> +1.  Upon further review, I agree.  Would anyone complain if it
> was moved?

It was originally in misc, because it isn't really doing process
primitive stuff.  It really should be in apr-util not apr, but I believe
that when I moved it from httpd into apr, apr-util didn't exist.

> I'd also love to split out thread and proc.  I don't see why they
> need to be together.  It makes looking for files that much more
> complicated.  Oh, well.  (I look for apr_proc.h or apr_thread.h -
> no, it's in apr_thread_proc.h - bah.)

When I wrote the code, they weren't that big, and having all execution
primitives in one place was actually really nice.  Now though, yeah I
would say they should be split up.

> > The other is that APR_OC_REASON_UNWRITABLE doesn't appear to ever
> > be used by APR.  apr_proc_other_child_register takes in a write_fd,
> > I don't ever see that this is used.
> Yeah, would you care to submit a patch to toss these?  -- justin

The original reason for those, was that we used to try writing to the
pipe and we would treat the process as dead if the pipe couldn't be
written to.  As it happens, that logic is broken, because it could just
be that the pipe buffer is full.


View raw message