httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Adam Sussman <mydd...@vidya.com>
Subject Re: Win32 Progress Report
Date Wed, 07 Aug 1996 02:04:25 GMT
> > 
> > Would it be possible perhaps to have some sort of central mutex registry
> > for unsafe library calls keyed by function names?
> 
> Probably. This is a political issue, though, not a technical issue. There
> just needs to be some sort of agreement (possibly facilitated by the
> Apache Group - I agree that it might be beneficial to have a mutex
> registry on www.apache.org) that ensures that everyone who uses mSQL uses: 
> 

Actualy, I was thinking more of a run time system in which you could pull
up a handle to a particular mutex in much the same way as you would get
a per-dir configuration in a module.  It sounds like (and correct me if
I am wrong) that there will have to be some sorting out of safe versus
non-safe function calls; especialy with regard to system dependant issues.
I think I saw someone suggest an abstracted interface to unsafe library
calls.  If this was compartmentalized in a manner similar to the way modules
are, a mechanism could be provided whereby these 'abstraction modules' could
register their mutexes at startup (or maybe even with something similar to
the way modules elect to handle certain handlers or mime-types with hard
coded structures).

A conscientious module writer then only needs to make sure he or she is
aware of the mutexes that might exist for the function calls their
code needs.  Grepping the code for a mutex should be no more difficult or
objectionable than grepping for a handler.

-adam

Mime
View raw message