Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 04:30:45PM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> > Did anybody want this done differently?
>
> What about Read/write locks? Those would use the same function for
> creation, but none of the values for the methods would be valid
> (except the DEFAULT).
Also note that what is there now is not just lock-flavor-specific but
also OS-specific. I would think that as there are choices for
different lock flavors on Unix or choices for anything on other APR
platforms that we could add other APR_LOCK_foo enums.
> Would it make more sense to have something that would be more
> specific to each lock type (mutex, semaphore, read/write locks)?
You tell me :)
I find the whole notion of needing to tell APR which mechanism to use
fairly klunky, and OS-specific stuff like this really klunky. Given
that premise, I don't have a big problem with APR_LOCK_DEFAULT being
the only thing valid for various platforms and/or lock flavors.
> [ See one note about the patch below...]
>
> > Index: test/testlock.c
> > ===================================================================
> > RCS file: /home/cvs/apr/test/testlock.c,v
> > retrieving revision 1.3
> > diff -u -r1.3 testlock.c
> > --- test/testlock.c 2001/06/06 22:25:43 1.3
> > +++ test/testlock.c 2001/06/25 20:27:22
> > @@ -143,7 +143,7 @@
> > printf("RW Lock Tests\n");
> > printf("%-60s", " Initializing the RW lock");
> > s1 = apr_lock_create(&thread_rw_lock, APR_READWRITE, APR_INTRAPROCESS,
> > - "lock.file", pool);
> > + APR_LOCK_CREATE, "lock.file", pool);
> > if (s1 != APR_SUCCESS) {
> > printf("Failed!\n");
> > return s1;
> > @@ -191,7 +191,7 @@
> > printf("Exclusive lock test\n");
> > printf("%-60s", " Initializing the lock");
> > s1 = apr_lock_create(&thread_lock, APR_MUTEX, APR_INTRAPROCESS,
> > - "lock.file", pool);
> > + APR_LOCK_CREATE, "lock.file", pool);
> >
> > if (s1 != APR_SUCCESS) {
> > printf("Failed!\n");
> > @@ -239,8 +239,8 @@
> >
> > printf("Testing multiple locking\n");
> > printf("%-60s"," Creating the lock we'll use");
> > - if ((rv = apr_lock_create(&multi, APR_MUTEX, APR_LOCKALL,"multi.lock",
> > - pool)) != APR_SUCCESS) {
> > + if ((rv = apr_lock_create(&multi, APR_MUTEX,
> > APR_LOCKALL,APR_LOCK_CREATE,
> > + "multi.lock", pool)) != APR_SUCCESS) {
> > printf("Failed!\n");
> > return rv;
> > }
>
> Shouldn't these be APR_LOCK_DEFAULT, or am I missing something?
You bet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I dunno what I'm doing :) Also, I need to
see why it worked (at least I think it did).
--
Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PGP public key at web site:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
