apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Amit Athavale <amit_athav...@persistent.co.in>
Subject Re: documented 1.0 showstoppers
Date Thu, 03 Jun 2004 14:35:03 GMT
>>>The damned locking API can't work portably as things stand today.  It
>>>wasn't designed to be portable, and it was never tested in a portable
>>>manner.  I posted a possible solution for this, but got no feedback at all
>>>on my idea.  I don't have the time to work on this right now, but it is a
>>>showstopper, and I am -1 on releasing with this issue in the code.
>>Just to be clear: you can't veto a release.
>>+1 for taking whatever the heck is in HEAD, say, in 2 weeks and calling it
>>1.0.  This is *so* way overdue.  If people haven't fixed it by now, it won't
>>get fixed anytime soon.  -- justin
>Dude, the API _can't_ work.  This isn't a matter of being able to slap a
>fix on it.  The locking API isn't portable, and until it is changed in
>some way, can't be made portable.  So, either we rip out the whole locking
>API as unusable in a portable application or we fix it, but saying that we
>are releasing a portable library with an API that we _know_ for a fact to
>be non-portable is complete BS.

I agree with you on this.

As a user of apr, I'll not like a major release of library (in this case 
1.0) without
important functionality such as locking either broken or dropped from a 
Instead users are happy using 0.x releases with known problems. If we 
are taking
known problems from 0.xx releases to major release, what's the point in 
releasing ?

As Ryan said 1.0 release of Apache *Portable* library with important 
broken / non-*portable* seems contradicting.

As far as locking API goes, for me (and I hope for large chunk of users) 
its very
important functionality. In fact I use APR only for file-io, locking and 

Ryan, could you dig out that possible solution for baby developers like 
me who have
become active recently :)


View raw message