Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > This could give the non-threaded users of APR even more reason to
> > > specify "--without-threads" when configuring - which they should be
> > > doing in the first place.
> >
> > yes. And we want recompiles of APR, no?
>
> If you have a non-threaded app, you should use a non-threaded APR.
> That's what makes sense to me, at least. -- justin
that makes sense to me too for my own purposes, but
1) before long I suspect some folks will want/need a single shared
library version of APR which works with multiple APR apps
and it won't just be "want" because they think it will be nicer to
have one build of APR... it will be "need" because different
dynamically-loaded code will have to use the same copy of APR*
(*maybe gstein could chime in here... some months back there was a
discussion of why single shared library of APR was so important)
2) even if, back to the Apache example, we use the prefork MPM, we may
have a module which uses threads; I've been told there are threaded
modules for Apache 1.3...; presumably we'd want such modules to
work with APR with Apache 2.0
I'm a bit surprised that none of the folks who were around when
CROSS_PROCESS vs. LOCKALL was invented have participated in the
discussion. I think I'm at least as concerned with that as with
losing a lock flavor.
--
Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PGP public key at web site:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
