On Sun, 15 Jul 2001, Sander Striker wrote:
Why are we so desperate in opting out the child-pool creation?
I don't really have problems with a child pool for each thread. Actually,
it will make the dynamic locking a lot easier to implement if it stays.
all threads MUST have their own private
On Sat, 14 Jul 2001, Sander Striker wrote:
The way I see it, each process has a single pool instance as the parent
for all the threads. Resetting or destroying that pool should effectively
kill all threads. What am I missing?
how does a thread kill another thread?
-dean
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Aaron Bannert wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 01:29:47AM -0700, dean gaudet wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2001, Sander Striker wrote:
Why are we so desperate in opting out the child-pool creation?
I don't really have problems with a child pool for each thread. Actually,
:)
all is not lost.
if you assume that you want some form of notification, but you want to
leave it unspecified because you're not sure what each apr thread will be
used for, then you can make a somewhat generic kill off other threads
cleanup.
so for example, when an httpd thread is created it
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Aaron Bannert wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 01:29:47AM -0700, dean gaudet wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2001, Sander Striker wrote:
Why are we so desperate in opting out the child-pool creation?
I don't really have problems with a child pool for each thread. Actually,
On Sun, 15 Jul 2001, Sander Striker wrote:
Fair enough. It's just that in order to opt-out of the child-pool creating
process in apr_thread_create, we're going to have to add a parameter
Why are we so desperate in opting out the child-pool creation?
I don't really have problems with a
On Sun, 15 Jul 2001, Aaron Bannert wrote:
On Sun, Jul 15, 2001 at 07:16:35PM +0200, Sander Striker wrote:
Fair enough. It's just that in order to opt-out of the child-pool creating
process in apr_thread_create, we're going to have to add a parameter
Why are we so desperate in opting
