apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From malc <m...@pulsesoft.com>
Subject Re: 1.0
Date Mon, 09 Aug 2004 17:41:29 GMT
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

> --On Monday, August 9, 2004 8:57 PM +0400 malc <malc@pulsesoft.com> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> The number of Win32 developers who are knowledgeable about this area are
> fairly small, so any patches you may have are certainly welcomed.  However, I
> will point out that it's probably been that way for years without anyone
> caring enough to fix it.
>
> I don't know a thing about Win32, so I'm of no help.  And, suspect that to be
> the case for the majority of APR developers.  I also doubt it's a problem in
> the API - so fixes to the Win32 condition variables can be done in APR 1.0.1
> if someone steps up and fixes it.  But, a 1.0 showstopper?  I say no.  But,
> adding a warning to the 1.0 release notes sounds fine to me.  -- justin
>

API is fine. As Max Khon pointed out there are  other problems in Win32
threading, so i belive (big)warning would be a way to go. Plus perhaps a
mention of win32 pthreads which are immune to these. After all APR
threading API is based on Pthreads so people can convert later.

-- 
mailto:malc@pulsesoft.com

Mime
View raw message