Ryan Bloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sunday 23 December 2001 09:47 am, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> > Ryan Bloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > On Sunday 23 December 2001 06:05 am, David Reid wrote:
> > > > While trying to build the worker MPM on beos, I found that as we didn't
> > > > need/want the _np clutter these small patches were neccesary. I can't
> > > > see anything wrong with simply committing them, but I thought I'd throw
> > > > them up here for discussion.
> > >
> > > I personally hate the np functions, because they are completely non-portable,
> > > as their name implies. We should either find some way to make them portable,
> > > or remove them IMNSHO.
> >
> > Give the function a different name (not ending in _np).
> > Make all os-specific lock types (everything but DEFAULT) end in _NP.
>
> Renaming the functions doesn't make it a portable set of functions.
The function can be portable because APR_LOCK_DEFAULT can work
anywhere. Heck, the *normal* way to get a lock could have a required
parameter which would normally be APR_LOCK_DEFAULT.
This isn't so useless; instead, it can be used to avoid the ugliness
that David encountered trying to get worker.c to build on a platform
that only supports APR_LOCK_DEFAULT.
> The fact
> remains that anybody who uses those functions directly is writing incredibly
> non-portable code.
The fact remains that Apache needs such a function. The fact remains
that APR has all the code available to supply what Apache needs.
Every time I "hear" that comment from you I worry for a moment (okay,
a few minutes) that I'm going to wake up some day with Apache no
longer be able to choose the lock implementation because you yanked
the underlying mechanism and left no replacement. -1 to that.
--
Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PGP public key at web site:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
