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: apr_proc_create intended behavior?
Date Tue, 21 Aug 2007 18:06:44 GMT
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.


View raw message