apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: 1.0
Date Mon, 09 Aug 2004 17:53:48 GMT

  is there anything that can be done in our apr/test/ tree to validate
the correct behavior, and tickle these bugs?  This would obviously
help validate the patches you propose, and possibly pick up such
bugs in other condition variable implementations.

  The emphasis for 1.0.0 is API-complete.  It won't mean zarro boogs.
It will mean that as folks develop for APR 1.0 - the api won't shift
beneath their feet from subversion to subversion, and it will remain
backwards compatible from minor to minor version.  In fact, for users
who build APR-based apps, things will only get better (till 2.0 really
improves things by a leap - but also will require the developers to
make adjustments for the API - all at once.)

  I hope to find cycles this week to review the patches (don't let that
stop anyone else of course.)  A test case would obviously help, alot.


At 11:57 AM 8/9/2004, malc wrote:
>Perhaps im way off on this and please do correct me if i am wrong.
>Condition variables on Win32 are broken, if you are going to label
>APR with 1.0 mark and release it right now, without mentioning this
>fact in big red letters, this would essentially be equal to releasing
>a trojan horse - a free, attractive, portable thing with a stamp of
>greatness (Apache) in its name, but deadly.
>Not only code responsible for condvars under Win32 lacks any error
>checking whatsoever, there are also races, stuff which (to the best
>of my knowlege) results in upredictable behavior, so people using
>it will be bitten.. hard.

View raw message