> > You are asking us to solve a problem but then saying that we can't solve > > it completely. This is a bogus conversation and I am done with it. > > Yep, this whole thread started off real simple and has gotten totally out of > hand.
That is because the problem/notion of a Temp directory as opposed to a temp file (handle) is a very complex and hairy one. With lots of operational ramfications when used by more than one app. And one which IMHO clashes with the very notion of portability. > If apr doesn't want to provide this functionality then we shoudl just > say so +1 to saying so. > Rather than trying to answer questions that haven't been asked. > Anyway, I've had enough of this as well. Sorry to the subversion guys but I > tried... I honestly thing that if the Subversion guys make their 'Temp' directory configurable on application level (and document the use semantics: volume, xs-permission, mostly read, mostly write, NO socket/shar-mem files or other aspects) that their application will only benefit from an operations perspective - and that ultimately they have made a better application than when they would defer to the bowels of APR to make a guess as what 'temp' means for them. Dw
