[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > http://people.apache.org/~wrowe/mpm_winnt_waits.patch > is easier to read (-U8) > +1: mturk > + +0: fielding (patch is okay, underlying code is crap) > wrowe notes: a patch should have the necessary effect with the > minimum lines of code - there's alot of redecorating that's > going on in this patch to no net effect. The WAIT_TIMEOUT > result value seems to be ignored in the revised code? > mturk notes: WAIT_TIMEOUT is replaced by WAIT_FAILED with > the accompanied patch in mpm\winnt\child.c. > + fielding notes: the routine is brain-dead -- one cannot replicate > + a wait for many objects by iterating through multiple waits with > + a one second sleep in between loops. That's insane. > + The right ways to do that are explained in the MSDN article > + <http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms687025.aspx> > + In any case, it should be checking nCount <= MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS > + first and use the simple wait in that case.
+1 to all of your observations. I believe the theory was that all of the waits would be satisfied eventually and be terminating in parallel, so the 'fine detail' of which ones terminated when was of very little importance. But on the risk that this code would show up somewhere that *mattered*, I totally agree with your suggestion of replacing the logic. Bill
