Planejamento
Estratégico & Empresarial
Caxias
do Sul
1/out (sexta)
Local:
Sigh. I forgot to update the patch file with the updated header...
Just need to move the POLL_USES_* stuff down to its own if/else..
@@ -46,16 +46,21 @@
#define HAS_PIPES(dt) (dt == APR_POLL_FILE) ? 1 : 0
#endif
-/* Choose the best method platform specific to use in apr_pollset */
+/* Choose
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 01:04:10PM -0600, Paul Querna wrote:
> Builds and works on Linux and OS-X. I am pretty sure it breaks the
> build system on Netware and Windows.
>
> Are there any objections to breaking up this file into one for each
> implementations?
I think this is a good idea, though
Attached is a patch that moves each Poll & Pollset implementation into
their own file.
This does not include any changes in my previous patch. This only moves
the existing code as it is in CVS to different files. There are no code
changes. Just removing of lots of #ifdefs and renaming some of the
Hi.
Some of the links to the different module documentation are broken on this
page:
http://apr.apache.org/docs/apr/modules.html
All of the module links are broken on this page:
http://apr.apache.org/docs/apr-util/modules.html
-- Jason
any other ideas?
gcc seems to be working for all my other apps..yesterday i just compiled bdb
for something else and it didn't complain about ld or gcc
On Sep22, 14:35, Mark wrote:
> On Sep22, 22:00, Joe Orton wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 09:30:15PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
> > > On Wed, S
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Mladen Turk wrote:
> I found myself couple of times replying to the original sender
> by default, while my intention was to reply to the list.
> The solution is either to 'reply to all' (why would anyone
> wish to receive two messages about the same subject?) or doing
> that b
Just to chime in,
I had to implement something similar to what Joe suggested to solve the
problem. An add queue and a delete queue in addition I had to create a
method for poking the select to wake up and cycle through the additions and
subtractions. Since most of the additions and subtractions
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 09:08:59AM -0600, Paul Querna wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 11:38 +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
> > So I'm worried this patch is really solving the problem in the wrong
> > place. The thing you are exporting here in the APR API, "is the
> > apr_pollset_* interface thread-safe in
On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 11:38 +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
> So I'm worried this patch is really solving the problem in the wrong
> place. The thing you are exporting here in the APR API, "is the
> apr_pollset_* interface thread-safe in _add and _remove", seems really
> horrible. Either an API is thread
On 2004-09-23 13:26+0100, Joe Orton wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 07:59:19PM -0600, Jani Averbach wrote:
> > This patch adds support for 'sometime in the future to be released'
> > Berkeley DB 4.3.
>
> a.k.a. make apr-util/configure another three times slower :)
>
No comments. =)
> Thanks Ja
On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 11:38 +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 08:57:24PM -0600, Paul Querna wrote:
> > Attached is a Patch for apr_pollset_*.
> > Changes Include:
> > - Replace HAS_* with USE_* to remove some complex #ifdef stuff.
> > - Partially thread safe (*)
> > - Removes the l
Greg Marr wrote:
Is there any reason why apr, apr-util, httpd mailing lists have
Reply-To header set to the sender and not to the list itself.
Search for
reply-to considered harmful
on Google and you'll find more information than you ever wanted to read
about both sides of the issue.
If you mean
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 07:59:19PM -0600, Jani Averbach wrote:
> This patch adds support for 'sometime in the future to be released'
> Berkeley DB 4.3.
a.k.a. make apr-util/configure another three times slower :)
Thanks Jani, committed to HEAD, I guess it applies the same to 0.9.x and
should be d
At 07:20 AM 9/23/2004, Mladen Turk wrote:
Is there any reason why apr, apr-util, httpd mailing lists have
Reply-To header set to the sender and not to the list itself. I
think almost all other lists has the 'Replay-To' header set to the
list itself. I mean, I'm receiving the messages from the li
Hi,
Is there any reason why apr, apr-util, httpd mailing lists have
Reply-To header set to the sender and not to the list itself.
I think almost all other lists has the 'Replay-To' header set
to the list itself. I mean, I'm receiving the messages from the
list and not from the particular poster, so
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 08:57:24PM -0600, Paul Querna wrote:
> Attached is a Patch for apr_pollset_*.
> Changes Include:
> - Replace HAS_* with USE_* to remove some complex #ifdef stuff.
> - Partially thread safe (*)
> - Removes the limitation on the number of sockets that you can add to a
> polls
On 23 Sep 2004 06:17:59 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> mturk 2004/09/22 23:17:59
>
> Modified:threadproc/win32 Tag: APR_0_9_BRANCH thread.c
> Log:
> Backport from HEAD.
> Makes the threads to behave like on posix. If the thread is created without
> APR_DE
APRUTIL LIBRARY STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2004/06/30 11:44:19 $]
Release:
1.0.0 rc2 : Tagged June 30th 2004(APU_1_0_RC2)
1.0.0 rc1 : Tagged June 2004 (APU_1_0_RC1)
0.9.3 : Tagged March 30, 2002
0.9.2
APACHE PORTABLE RUNTIME (APR) LIBRARY STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2004/09/02 03:49:03 $]
Releases:
Standalone
1.0.0 : released September 1, 2004
0.9.3 : tagged March 30, 2003
0.9.2 : released March 22, 2003
0.9.1 : released Septemb
Attached is a Patch for apr_pollset_*.
Changes Include:
- Replace HAS_* with USE_* to remove some complex #ifdef stuff.
- Partially thread safe (*)
- Removes the limitation on the number of sockets that you can add to a
pollset (**)
* The patch allows multiple threads to concurrently call _add()
21 matches
Mail list logo
