On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 13:16, Mladen Turk <[email protected]> wrote: > Joe Orton wrote: >... >> -1 > > I announced that twice on this list during the last year, > so you should spoke then thought.
And people miss email. Or they thought it might be implemented differently. Or WHATEVER. It doesn't matter. There is no time limit on standing against a change. It is possible to veto something that was checked in *months* ago. That change would then have to be backed out before release, or some solution/compromise reached instead. I'm also with Joe: stuff like this can be built *on top of* APR, rather than being part of it. Create a shared memory segment, and pass a cmdline switch. Or leave a descriptor open with the name of the segment which the parent/child can write/read. These solutions could be done as part of apr-util, no? Cheers, -g
