Re: cvs commit: apr/include apr_thread_proc.h

> >clar2004/06/11 13:13:19 > > > > Added NetWare specific option in apr_cmdtype_e to start program in a separate address space for cmdtype field in apr_procattr_t struct > > > > --- apr_thread_proc.h 10 Jun 2004 10:57:24 - 1.105 > > +++ apr_thread_proc.h 11 Jun 2004 20:13:19 -00

Re: Proc mutex re-org

++1 to re-naming this way. You guys know not to let me name things. After I get some more feedback, I'll make this change (and possibly others) and commit. Ryan On Sun, 13 Jun 2004, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > At 08:45 PM 6/12/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >OK, here is the proc mutex re

Re: Case-sensitive months in apr_date_parse_rfc

Does anyone think this should need an api change? This needs to be looked at IMHO as Dimitri is correct, we should be lenient! My gut feeling is that this is an implementation detail and so no api change is needed. david

Re: [PATCH] Strawman at fixing disjoint process locking

At 07:35 AM 6/8/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: >>> > At 07:42 AM 6/4/2004, Joe Orton wrote: >> > >On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 02:31:48AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: >> > >> I took a look at the locking p

Re: Proc mutex re-org

At 08:45 PM 6/12/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >OK, here is the proc mutex re-org. This is ugly, but it passes all of the >tests, using both fork and proc_create. The only problem with this patch, >is that it doesn't do the configure magic to actually setup FORK_DEFAULT >and PROC_CREATE_DEFAULT

minor API issues

some look like easy cleanups for platform folks to look at more closely; others are just accepted incompatibilities with our general philosophy (e.g., instead of defining apr_strcasecmp() we ensure that Unix-ish strcasecmp() is available everywhere) 1) possible future binary compatibility conce

Bug report for APR [2004/06/13]

+---+ | Bugzilla Bug ID | | +-+ | | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned

Re: Proc mutex re-org

> OK, here is the proc mutex re-org. This is ugly, but it passes all of the > tests, using both fork and proc_create. The only problem with this patch, > is that it doesn't do the configure magic to actually setup FORK_DEFAULT > and PROC_CREATE_DEFAULT. To test this, I just set APR_USE_FLOCK_SER

Proc mutex re-org

OK, here is the proc mutex re-org. This is ugly, but it passes all of the tests, using both fork and proc_create. The only problem with this patch, is that it doesn't do the configure magic to actually setup FORK_DEFAULT and PROC_CREATE_DEFAULT. To test this, I just set APR_USE_FLOCK_SERIALIZE