Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 07:22:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ryan Bloom <rbb@raleigh.ibm.com>
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src/lib/apr APRDesign
In-Reply-To: <19991020154620.A21007@io.com>
Message-ID: 
 <Pine.LNX.4.04.9910210709330.19166-100000@chosondo.raleigh.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

> If a programmer tries to create a thread on an unthreaded system, the
> compile should fail. However, thread locks should still exist and be
> no-ops. Why? If mmap doesn't exist on your platform and you try to use
> it, you're hosed. But if thread locks don't exist because there are no
> threads, then your code will still work just fine.

HUH?!?!?!?  When was the last time you saw a non-threaded platform that
provided thread locks?  If we are going to not compile when a function is
not supported, then we should not compile when a function is not
supported.  I don't want to create a bunch of rules about when we return
APR_ENOTIMPL, and when we don't define the function.  It's really simple.
If the platform supports it, don't provide the function.  If the platform
doesn't support it (ie Windows) return APR_ENOTIMPL.

Ryan

_______________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom		rbb@raleigh.ibm.com
4205 S Miami Blvd	
RTP, NC 27709		It's a beautiful sight to see good dancers 
			doing simple steps.  It's a painful sight to
			see beginners doing complicated patterns.