-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 07/12/2010 12:07 PM, Eric Smith wrote: > I don't think the devs would complain about that. "This code has too > few lines!"
They also have to have signed paper copies dedicating the code to public domain and acknowledging the right to do so. That is far more work than just reimplementing it in the same coding style as the rest of SQLite, not to mention testing etc. (My test code is in Python, theirs is in TCL.) >> and it is an open issue as to how you report the cross fork usage should >> it happen. (In my case I know Python is being used.) > > I didn't look at it deeply, but out of curiosity: what's wrong with just > returning (or causing SQLite to return) a standard unhappy return code? Because that isn't sufficient. For example sqlite3_mutex_leave returns void and that makes sense normally. But a mutex could be acquired then a fork happens in which case you want the release in the child process to be VERY upset. Similarly sqlite3_mutex_enter returns void for similar reasons - it cannot fail, just block. About the only correct thing to do in a process using SQLite through a fork is to terminate the process. (Even then that could mess with locks depending on how the operating systems deals with it - POSIX locks are insane.) Roger -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkw7jWAACgkQmOOfHg372QTEHgCgyrVFNqEojYCJBQogujIpGX3B ecoAn14F0afCCkuEpeybbvqlX1J86X3I =JHN4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
