Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 13:26:18 -0700
From: Justin Erenkrantz <jerenkrantz@ebuilt.com>
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: Standards compliance in Apache code WAS Re: Terminiting threads in a
 process RE: [PATCH] Problems with MPM threaded
Message-ID: <20010714132618.B14852@ebuilt.com>
References: <20010714124951.E23346@ebuilt.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.30.0107141254260.32207-100000@koj.rkbloom.net>
 <20010714131943.F23346@ebuilt.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <20010714131943.F23346@ebuilt.com>;
 from aaron@ebuilt.com on Sat, Jul 14, 2001 at 01:19:43PM -0700

On Sat, Jul 14, 2001 at 01:19:43PM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> > Async cancellation of threads is VERY bad ju-ju.  We don't do it because
> > it causes most, if not all, thread libraries to leak.  The cleanups are
> > called because the child pool is destroyed when all the threads die.
> 
> Right, but we're about to kill the processes anyway, so who cares if
> it leaks on some platforms. Anyway, we're writing to a specification,
> not an implementation. If Apache isn't going to encourage OS vendors to
> properly implement their own APIs, who is?

Eh, it's probably the other way around.  Otherwise, we'd have no need
for #ifdefs.  =)  Standards are only as good as their implementations.
Most users of Apache couldn't care less if their favorite OS didn't
implement a particular feature correctly.  It's *our* problem to work
around it.  Ideally, yes, we could just write to a spec, but that's in
fantasy land.  I live in the real world with lots of sub-par
implementations flying around.

> (Just think how easy it would be for us if all these platforms fully supported
> a single API, be it posix or whatever. Heaven!)
> 
> Anyway, to me this is what pools were designed for.

I'd still like to know how you are going to interrupt the cross-process
mutex.  

It doesn't matter if it implemented Posix or whatever.  That's not the
problem here.  We're in the middle of an uninterruptable call and that
mutex can not be destroyed because it is *cross-process*.  -- justin