apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Brian Havard" <bri...@kheldar.apana.org.au>
Subject Re: cvs commit: apr STATUS
Date Tue, 05 Feb 2002 14:07:58 GMT
On Mon, 4 Feb 2002 11:17:38 -0800, Aaron Bannert wrote:

>Can someone please comment on the state of the OS/2 and Netware lock
>implementation? Is it unnecessary or even senseless to implement
>a cross-process lock on Netware (where I've been told there are
>only threads)?

On OS/2 the only native mechanism that has cross-process lock behaviour is
file locking (which is yuck because then you have to have a lock file). In
fact I suspect the only reason we have cross-process locks at all is that
some platforms only have file locks so the API was created to fit these
platforms' capabilities.

Wouldn't it be more useful & portable for the cross-process lock type to
have the "lock all" behaviour, considering that on non-threaded platforms
it amounts to the same thing? I'd expect that any platform that has threads
would also have process sharable mutexes, making a "lock all" API universal
to all platforms, threaded or not.

Is it ever useful to have the cross-process behaviour in a threaded
application? (not meant as a rhetorical question but I can't think of any
cases off the top of my head).

-- 
 ______________________________________________________________________________
 |  Brian Havard                 |  "He is not the messiah!                   |
 |  brianh@kheldar.apana.org.au  |  He's a very naughty boy!" - Life of Brian |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mime
View raw message