> 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.
I am the person who introduced all of that. To be honest, I can't track
all the e-mail anymore. I now follow what I have time to follow, and get
involved with things I feel strongly about. For stuff I don't have strong
opinions about, I tend to not get involved, because I just don't have the
time. Plus, when I introduced it, we were coding on Linux only. I don't
know that we have information of any platforms where a CROSS_PROCESS lock
isn't LOCKALL, but I was nervous about it when I wrote the code. And, I
was using an older version of Linux, so threads were great back then.
It's possible this isn't really an issue. I just don't know. :-){
Ryan
_____________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
