On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 02:39:53PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > From: "Aaron Bannert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 12:35 PM > > > Will the experts on each non- or semi-POSIX system please comment on if > > these concepts are implementable? At this point I'm ignoring issues like > > PROCESS_SHARED vs PROCESS_PRIVATE, since I think at first simply providing > > "intraprocess" conditions would give us a huge benefit. > > Doug's implementation looks pretty slick for Win32, I presume OS2 will have > no problems whatsoever.
I just looked through and it looks great. I'd like to present a patch (well, a bunch of new files) that fits this into APR, but there is the issue of what to do with apr_lock_t. I'd prefer keeping the function names (s/ap_/apr_/) from Doug's implementation rather than fooling around with the one-lock-fits-all apr_lock_t. Objections? (I'm still wanting/willing to separate apr_lock_t into finer-grain lock types, and this gets us going in that direction.) -aaron
