+1 from me.... tests good (thx for the reminder ping!) On May 10, 2010, at 4:35 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 5/4/2010 2:16 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: >> Here's a backport vote to 2.2 for your consideration; >> >> It is far too painful to adopt the new Mutex directive for modules targeting >> httpd 2.2 and future 2.3. The solution, I believe, is to provide the mutex >> directive for all developers to use, and simply not adopt it within httpd >> itself >> until our jump to 2.4 happens. >> >> To that end, I've hacked together >> http://people.apache.org/~wrowe/mod_mutex.c >> http://people.apache.org/~wrowe/util_mutex.h >> which I'm propose we adopt for inclusion in both our httpd 2.2 and 2.0 trees >> under >> 'experimental/', and default to build 'most' (effectively, an ever present >> no-op, >> until they add an external module that relies on it). >> >> If this is accepted, it would become a prereq for users adopting new releases >> of mod_fcgid or mod_ftp. You can review the source code to see how badly we >> need a simpler solution; >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/mod_fcgid/trunk/modules/fcgid/fcgid_mutex_unix.c?view=markup&pathrev=885868 >> - of course the user of a slightly >> older 2.2.x or 2.0.x could simply build mod_mutex with apxs and then their >> module, >> and they also must install util_mutex.h for dependent module builds to >> succeed. >> >> So please review and opine... >> >> +/-1 >> [ ] Adopt mod_mutex.c on httpd 2.2.x svn branch >> [ ] Adopt mod_mutex.c on httpd 2.0.x svn branch > > Any further votes? FWIW there is a new rev .1 of the .h file that changes the > unused data members into unused static functions. All my compilers apparently > have no problems with the later. > > http://people.apache.org/~wrowe/util_mutex.h.1 >
