apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: apr_proc_create intended behavior?
Date Tue, 21 Aug 2007 18:46:13 GMT

On Aug 21, 2007, at 2:06 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> I need to clarify this;
>>
>> on unix, with apr_procattr_child_XXX_set() (where XXX is in/out/ 
>> err), or
>> with partial apr_procattr_io_set() (where only some of in/out/err  
>> are set),
>>
>> does apr_proc_create ensure we have the parent processes' std in,  
>> out, err
>> handles where they are not explicitly overridden with the calls I  
>> mentioned
>> above?
>
> With the lack of response, I'll presume that, yes, any weren't  
> filled in
> are propagated.  For Windows, this just means picking up the now- 
> current
> standard handle (assuming, also, that they are set inherited already).
>
> So, next question about apr_procattr_child_[in|out|err]_set(attr,  
> file, NULL).
>
> I'll presume from the sources that this is completely legitimate?   
> No need
> to actually have a parent handle/fd, since we check if it's null  
> and take
> no action relative to the parent, if it wasn't defined.
>

+1



Mime
View raw message