Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 7876 invoked by uid 500); 18 Feb 2003 23:11:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 7815 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2003 23:11:51 -0000 Message-ID: <3E52BDBF.8070103@xbc.nu> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 00:11:59 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?QnJhbmtvIMSMaWJlag==?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030217 X-Accept-Language: sl, en-gb, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: APR Subject: Re: How to get the PID? References: <3E52BCDF.4030706@xbc.nu> In-Reply-To: <3E52BCDF.4030706@xbc.nu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Branko Čibej wrote: >Hmm, looking at our apr_proc_t, I see we _also_ use plain pid_t in there >(and define it in apr.h on platforms that don't have it). This explains >why we don't have an apr_os_proc_get -- users will simple use the pid >member from apr_proc_t. But we don't have one of those > Eeek. By "one of those" I meant an apr_os_proc_t, of course, not a pid_t. What I meant to say was: that without and apr_os_proc_t member, apr_proc_t is funcamentally broken. There, that's clearer, I hope. > in apr_proc_t at >all, which seems just a bit strange to me, and upon reflection I think >that apr_proc_t is fundamentally broken because of that. It might be a >bit hard to unbreak it while still maintaining backward compatibility, >though... > > > -- Brane Čibej http://www.xbc.nu/brane/