apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-li...@lists.zabbadoz.net>
Subject Re: [PATCH] inheriting pipes
Date Wed, 05 Mar 2003 22:24:25 GMT
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

> At 01:54 PM 3/5/2003, Joe Orton wrote:
> >> But why not just register apr_unix_file_cleanup for cleanup like in
> >
> >Indeed, I wonder it was implement this way too.  I think the change you
> >suggest is a little more intrusive than mine, as currently some callers
> >are compensating for the fact that no child_cleanup is registered.
> I agree we must register a cleanup so that we don't have to jump through
> hoops later.  APR app developers should be able to trust that there is
> already a cleanup registered for such objects they create.

They already do :-((

> >I also wonder why the code goes to these lengths when on Unix setting
> >the CLOEXEC flag would probably suffice.
> We should do *either*;  if CLOEXEC is supported and can be toggled
> per our API (_set/_unset) then that can be the preferred method, to protect
> ourselves from non-apr callers of exec().  (This goes for files, too.)


Perhaps then also have s.th. like an "alias" apr_pipe_(un)set_inherit to
apr_file_(un)set_inherit ? It perhaps would make some lines of code
more clear...

< may be ignored >
Just 'cause I currently saw this: why is it named apr_file_cleanup on
1/2OS aaeh OS/2 and apr_unix_file_cleanup ? And it seems to be only
named file_cleanup for win32.
Functions are also named apr_file_open or apr_file_pipe_create for
unix. So ich someone touches this perhaps we can also do some cleanup
for thos cleanup_fns ? Ok, I can hear you till here go *waaah* ;-))))
If I am right with my limited apache/apr experience this functions
should be/"are" hidden from users so it should not be real problem ?
< /may be ignored >

Bjoern A. Zeeb				bzeeb at Zabbadoz dot NeT
56 69 73 69 74				http://www.zabbadoz.net/

View raw message