> I know what the issue is we are trying to solve. So, are you suggesting > that each APR type will have such an object? If we are only going to do > this for sockets and locks (already doing it for socks), then I would > prefer to just stick with apr_put_os_*. If we are going to do this for > more APR types, then the apr_os_make_* functions do make more sense, > assuming we can find some way to make the apr_get_os_* functions make > sense.
I have thought about this a bit more, and I think we actually want both apr_put_os_* and apr_os_make_* (although I would use apr_make_os_* for consistency). The reason we want both, is that they have different uses. In the perchild MPM, I really do want apr_put_os_socket, because I don't have a full socket, I have a Unix Domain Socket, so I don't want to fill out the whole os specific socket structure. Same thing goes for apr_socket_from_file, we can't fill in the whole structure. So, IMHO we want apr_put_os_* for all APR types and apr_os_make_* only for those types that have conditions like socket. Does that make sense? Ryan _______________________________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] 406 29th St. San Francisco, CA 94131 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
