apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>
Subject Re: cvs commit: apr/locks/netware global_mutex.c
Date Thu, 21 Feb 2002 01:15:58 GMT
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 06:44:25PM -0600, William Rowe wrote:
> Now how are you going to avoid calling apr_foo_mutex_create calling
> apr_bar_mutex_create without 1. duplicating code, or 2. exposing the
> synonyms to the client code [via apr/include/apr_foo_mutex.h"] ?
> Either we have an extra call setup/teardown in mutexing code [already time
> sensitive] or we have APR_HAS_FOO_IS_BAR_MUTEX-style declarations 
> in apr.[h.in|.hw.|.nw] that feed our apr_foo_mutex.h header.

Yes, you're right, and I don't see any way around it. I am still
hung up on the feeling that we are exposing an implementation detail.

What I mean by "implementation detail" is this is not a macro that
we want to encourage app authors to use, in the way they might want
to use APR_HAS_THREADS, for example. They should never use an
APR_PROC_MUTEX_IS_GLOBAL to change the way their code compiles.


View raw message