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 19:38:54 GMT
> From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:jerenkrantz@apache.org]
> 
> On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 12:11:59PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I don't think that was a mistake.  You are adding extra parameters
> where it just confuses the API.  I see no problem with using the
> same parameter on input/output - provided that it has the same
> meaning on input and output (same as apr_file_read()).

It is a mistake, and it is confusing, as should be obvious, because
people screwed up.

> Regardless, why don't we just fix apr_poll() and then discuss
> whether we should change/fix the API?  -- Justin

Because I want more opinions before I commit, for one.  And for another,
I want to fix it right.   Multiple commits doesn't make sense.  Have the
discussion, and then we can commit.  Waiting until Monday or Tuesday
isn't going to hurt anything, and I would like Jeff and Bill to have an
opportunity to comment.  Not to mention that I still need time to fix
the other platforms versions of apr_poll.  Wheil the API doesn't have to
change, the implementation is changing, and committing on just one
platform won't work in this case.

Ryan



Mime
View raw message