Aaron Bannert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi All,
>
> sorry to rekindle this fire, but I want to get this settled and move on.
>
>
> In my previous posts I said that I do not see why there are both
> APR_CROSS_PROCESS and APR_LOCK_ALL semantics in APR's lock
> routines. Instead I'd like to see APR_LOCK_ALL go away, and
> APR_CROSS_PROCESS to provide unconditional cross-process locking
> regardless of the underlying platform.
>
> The problem is that an APR_CROSS_PROCESS lock will behave differently
> depending on the platform implementation, and this goes against the
> "portable" part of APR.
I don't have a problem with this. Sorry for being stupid before :)
--
Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PGP public key at web site:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
