Well, that all makes sense to me. As does the added reasoning by Jeff, so........
-1! Just kidding, +1, I'm behind this 100%. :-) Ryan On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Well, that's it basically. APR chooses what's best on a per-platform > basis, but it might not be the best choice for a per-environment > basis. For example, on my Foobar box, APR may choose FCNTL, but > I've enabled/added semaphores and want to use that. Instead of having > to recompile, it would be nice to be able to simply edit and restart. > Might also be a factor in resource control as well... > > Your concern about "if we do this, how do we determine the default > mutex" is a good one, and I've been considering a DEFAULT type which > is the one that APR currently chooses. That way, all would currently > work as is, but people would have the option in httpd.conf to set > > AcceptMutex fcntl|flock|sysv|pthread|default... > > As far as someone choosing a method not supported on that platform, > then an error-no-start or error-choose-default would be the 2 > options on how Apache/APR should handle that. I think I'd prefer the > 'choose-default' reaction... > > At 6:53 AM -0700 6/22/01, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >Could be cool. But a quick question, what do you expect to gain with > >this? Is it for experimentation, or do you believe that having multiple > >mutex types will be useful in the same production server? Would this mean > >that the Apache code would need to try multiple kinds of locks before it > >necessarily found one that worked? > > > > > -- > =========================================================================== > Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ > "It's *good* to be the King." > > _______________________________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] 406 29th St. San Francisco, CA 94131 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
