apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ryan Bloom" <...@covalent.net>
Subject RE: New apr_poll() implementation was Re: [PATCH] speed up network timeout processing
Date Sat, 06 Jul 2002 19:11:59 GMT
> From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:jerenkrantz@apache.org]
> On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 08:32:18AM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > Because if Apache can't get it right, then I am assuming that nobody
> > else can either.  I had originally coded it to use *nsds just as you
> > describe below, and it didn't pass any tests, because throughout the
> > code people were passing 0 as *nsds.  I decided to fix an API
> > that I created years ago by using the same variable for both input
> > output parameters in this patch.  I am not tied to adding num, but I
> > believe that it is the correct approach.
> I vote to fix httpd rather than add an extra parameter.  Perhaps we
> need to make it clearer that *nsds is the number of fd's on input.
> But, I know that I was under that impression by reading the docs.
> However, I can see where people were confused if they read the docs.

I vote to fix the API so that these kinds of mistakes can't happen in
the future.  I made a lot of mistakes when I designed APR (even though
Manoj tried to convince me I was wrong).  One of those mistakes is
having functions use a single variable for both input and result
parameters.  I would like to fix that mistake for apr_poll now, as long
as we are changing the implementation.

BTW, I should also mention that the APR_POLL_LASTDESC enum is only there
for backwards compat.  Most code that uses apr_poll would never use that


View raw message