Hi Pier,
>Whoha... Looking for troubles, huh? :)
no - trouble usually comes looking for me :)
>> B.T.W. My 'provider' is an interface between apache and an IIOP (CORBA)
>> connector that allows apache to converse with tomcat (using an IIOP java
>> connector).
>One of these days you'll enlighten me of the difference... I'm wondering
why
>you're using IIOP...
it's not so much the access to tomcat - though IIOP does give me some nice
load-balancing/
location transparancy for free, it's more the case that if I can get this
working, I can
then call CORBA objects directly from apache without having to go via
tomcat.
I can also call C++ based CORBA objects as well as Java ones.
>Darn... Why would it be IOCTLing a device when creating a thread?
Confused the hell out of me as well - I was wondering if it was the device
driver
that implements threads that was signalling an invalid ioctl operation.
Perhaps when
a thread is started up on Solaris, it looks like just another device under
the covers.
Or perhaps you can associate some device with a thread at thread creation
time and it's
that that causes the ioctl error. Who knows - I'm not a solaris kernel
guru...
>Is it simply crashing or does it give some output?
The child processes that apache forks coredump with SEGVIO, nowhere near the
code that handles
mod webapp but during the startup of apache. It doesn't seem to like
libthread.so ;-)
> b) any suggestions on using multi-threading apps (in a single threaded
> fashion) within mod_Webapp or apache.
>I bet it would be the same if you created a module without APR and WEBAPP.
>IMVHO, the problem is somewhere else... :(
I agree - but there must be someway to get apache to 'like' threading...
> p.s. Note that this isn't a problem per se with the mod_webapp connector -
> more an issue with the use of threading
> within Apache - so can anyone advise where i should post this request if
not
> here?
>
>I'm forwarding to apr-dev, lots of bright people over there, please, since
>this is outside of the scope of APR, respond privately to me and/or Thom.
>Thank you very much...
...and thank you too for the 'tea and sympathy' ;-)
-T.
