apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Henry Jen" <henry...@ztune.net>
Subject Re: apr_threadpool bogosity?
Date Sat, 03 May 2008 08:57:47 GMT
Bill,

Sorry for late reply, I have been overwhelmed by JavaOne preparation.
I had reviewed the patch and gave my +1, just that I don't have comitter
access and won't be able to help. There is the other Solaris poll bug fix I
tried to get it in but no one seems to care even though Paul had say it
should be committed.

I am getting frustrated with APR, to be honest.

Cheers,
Henry


On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 11:36 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
wrote:

> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
> > https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42889
> >
> > which must be committed?
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20540
> > https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20542
> >
> > I'm a little disturbed that the 1.3.0 discussion has been going on for
> > about 2.5 weeks, and I just now noticed this flaw.  Once 1.3 is gone
> > we can't *fix* the api, and can't expand it until 1.4
> >
>
> More on the topic;
>
> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43876
>
> containing threadpool API patches here;
>
> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21378
>
> without any closing feedback to Joe Mudd, submitter.
>
> The httpd project has a goal to tag on the 7th.  Work backwards, that's
> a tag here no later than the 4th.  I would hate to pull apr_threadpool,
> but if it can't be addressed today or tomorrow and some final decisions
> made on it's initial rollout, I'm tempted that we simply push it to 1.4.0,
> which would be a shame.
>
> Bill
>

Mime
View raw message