On Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 04:48:12PM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote: > > > I would prefer moving to a situation where the function that allows > > > you to specify the implementation is always available and > > > APR_LOCK_DEFAULT is always available. > > > > > > One way to do that: > > > > > > . get rid of apr_lock_create_np() and apr_proc_mutex_create_np() > > > > > > . add new required parameter to apr_lock_create() and > > > apr_proc_mutex_create() for specifying implementation (expecting > > > most callers to pass APR_LOCK_DEFAULT) > > This patch would seem to implement this:
++1 (in concept, untested). Let's get this committed, work out the kinks and go with it. -aaron
