apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ryan Bloom" <...@covalent.net>
Subject RE: [design] work around new apr_poll leakage?
Date Mon, 22 Jul 2002 15:05:33 GMT
> From: trawick@rdu88-250-182.nc.rr.com [mailto:trawick@rdu88-250-
> 
> "Ryan Bloom" <rbb@covalent.net> writes:
> 
> > No, the old design was completely bogus.  As proof, Trawick vetoed
even
> > using the damned thing inside of APR.
> 
> I listed two conditions for the veto:
> 
>   1) something more complex than calling poll() in that situation
>   2) something slower than calling poll() in that situation
> 
> It seems to me that the current code meets both conditions, though
> not as obnoxiously as code using the older apr_poll() interface would
> have.

Can you clarify this please?  Does that mean that you are vetoing the
current code too?  BTW, I don't understand how you can say that calling
apr_poll() is more complex than calling poll(), since they have the same
API.  If your saying that they _only_ solution you will accept is
calling poll() itself, then that is completely bogus.

Ryan



Mime
View raw message