On 11/30/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Salikh Zakirov wrote: > Weldon Washburn wrote: >> After reading an excellent survey ( >> http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/win32-cv-1.html)on implementing >> posix-style >> condition variables on windowsxp, its not clear that being dependent on >> any >> external posix-to-win32 wrapper is acceptable for Harmony. If this >> paper is >> correct, it looks rather tricky to correctly implement condition variables >> on windows. My take on the whole subject is that Harmony needs to fix >> and/or morph some "condition variable on win32" thingy. Its OK if the >> "thingy" happens to be APR. But I would not let APR slow Harmony down. To >> do condition variables per the paper, the APR code base may change a bunch. >> Its unclear if the APR crowd will want to incorporate such mods. I lean >> towards dumping APR. > > ... or just stop pretending we are using apr_thread_cond_t, while in fact > we are using completely different implementation. > > I think that patched (rewritten) thread_cond.c can easily be ported > to implement hycond_t directly (besides, currently hycond_t is #defined to be > apr_thread_cond_t). > > We do not need to get orthodox about "use APR" or "dump APR", > but instead just use what we need, and do not use what is not suitable.
That's exactly right. The corollary is that there need be no discussion about moving to latest APR release (the title of the email chain). Whoever maintains this part of threading can take from APR what they think is appropriate w/o asking dev list. No discussion about what to do w/ mods to APR. Let the APR folks take the mods from Harmony if they are motivated to do so. +1
If we've patched the standard impl of apr_thread_cond_t into oblivion, lets just be honest and use our own method. (I'm more than happy if we wean ourselves off of the dogmatic use of APR, and just use what makes sense for *us*) geir
-- Weldon Washburn Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division
