httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <>
Subject Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src/support httpd.exp
Date Sat, 02 Dec 2000 02:08:08 GMT
On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 05:39:05PM -0800, wrote:
> > > Unfortunately, after getting the normal code working I went into the
> > > WinNT MPM ('cause it too calls ap_new_connection()) and realized I
> > > needed to do some research about whether or not the APR socket (built
> > > via apr_put_os_sock()) is properly initialized on Windows.
> > 
> > We should probably toss the apr_put_os_* functions and call them something
> > like apr_os_make_*() and accept the particular OS object to construct the
> > APR type.
> Two questions.  1)  Why the name change?  2)  What particular OS object
> are you talking about?

1) To signify that the object is be constructed/built with the OS object (an
   fd, socket fd, thread id, whatever), rather than simply inserted.

2) The case Jeff was running into was sockets. When an fd was inserted into
   an apr_socket, some of the other stuff wasn't set up.

Basically, it seems to make more sense to build an APR object around an
OS-specific object, rather than to try and build an APR object and inject
the OS piece.

> The reason I chose the apr_put_os_* name, is that it matches well with
> apr_get_os_*.

Right, and that makes sense. But if we need a real "constructor", then
apr_put_os_* doesn't sound quite right.

> Not that its important, but I would like the two functions
> to be symetric, because they perform complimentary functions.

Yup. And my thinking is that the "put" isn't as useful as a "make a new APR
object, given this socket fd."


Greg Stein,

View raw message