httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@lyra.org>
Subject Re: [PATCH] ap_xlateattr_t for passing options to ap_xlate_open()
Date Tue, 23 May 2000 20:10:34 GMT
I recognize that threadattr and procattr need to be opaque. But it seems
that xlateattr is a mechanism for passing known parameters, rather than to
hide platform-specific issues. I'm open to eduction, however :-)

Cheers,
-g

On Tue, 23 May 2000 rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> 
> Threadattr and procattr need to be opaque.  Take a look at the differences
> between Windows and Unix implementations sometime.  I am about to commit a
> change to make ap_proc_t's complete and thus non-opaque.  I am sure the
> xlate stuff is opaque because that was the way APR was written when this
> stuff we first started.  I have purposefully stayed away from the xlate
> stuff recently.  I suspect that now that we are trying to "open up" a few
> of the APR types, the xlate stuff may become a complete type.
> 
> Ryan
> 
> > I find the whole xlateattr/procattr/threadattr stuff hard to use. There
> > aren't that many parameters here, and there is not a lot of calling points
> > in the code. Just pass the dumb params to the function rather than
> > interposing an opaque(!) structure in the way.
> > 
> > pthreads' threadattr makes some sense because it needs to be opaque for
> > its cross-platform nature. The xlate stuff doesn't seem to need to be
> > opaque. We support a specific set of parameters, which are well-defined
> > and portable. Sure, they might be ignored on some platforms, but the
> > calling code doesn't need to know that.
> > 
> > How many places do we use ap_xlate_open? If that happened in a bazillion
> > places, then maybe the attr stuff would simplify the code. However, I
> > don't see that we would really be sharing the attrs between the call
> > points. This means each call would be something like:
> > 
> >     ap_xlate_create_xlateattr(&xattr, p);
> >     ap_xlate_set_xlateattr_sb(xattr, 1);
> >     ap_xlate_open(&set, xattr, ...);
> > 
> > instead of:
> > 
> >     ap_xlate_open(&set, 1, ...);
> > 
> > 
> > I'll take the latter any day.
> > 
> > How many parameters do we really think will be added? And do we really
> > have no idea what they would be? IMO, I'll take new constructor functions
> > and deprecate the old instead of complicating every constructor and use.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > -g
> > 
> > -- 
> > Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
> > 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> Ryan Bloom                        	rbb@apache.org
> 406 29th St.
> San Francisco, CA 94131
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/


Mime
View raw message