On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 09:15:54AM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote: > 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 :)
I can commit something to APR that tosses APR_LOCKALL - this makes the locking code a little simpler. However, httpd-2.0 has some instances of APR_LOCKALL. I can post a patch to new-httpd that switches all of those to APR_CROSS_PROCESS. Ideally, someone with commit access to both repositories can apply both of them at the same time. -- justin
