On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 07:42:10 -0800 (PST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >My own opinion Brian, is to choose an implementation you like, and make >that a standard.
I prefer the more diplomatic approach & allow others to comment first before I go changing things that may affect them. Someone might have a good reason why the other way is better. >If that means we clear the apr_poolfd_t, then cool, if >not, that's cool too. If you make the choice, and don't want to change >on Unix, I'll do it. I should be able to handle it, but thanks anyway (yes, I have a unix box too). >On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Brian Havard wrote: > >> I've noticed that some implementations of apr_poll clear the apr_pollfd_t >> they're given, requiring reapplication of apr_add_poll_socket()s, and some >> don't. >> >> Apart from being inconsistent, it's a problem for me because the >> implementation I wrote for OS/2 doesn't clear the list but doesn't prevent >> duplicates either so when an app re-adds after an apr_poll() it results in >> duplicates in the list (it's just an array of descriptors). ApacheBench >> (ab) on OS/2 is currently broken because of this but I'm not sure what the >> correct fix is. >> >> I'd like to see consistent behaviour from apr_poll() on all platforms but >> which? My own preference is to not clear the list & therefore not require >> repeated apr_add_poll_socket() calls. This would require the select based >> implementations to copy their fd_sets before calling select(). >> >> Thoughts? -- ______________________________________________________________________________ | Brian Havard | "He is not the messiah! | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | He's a very naughty boy!" - Life of Brian | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
