> On Thu, 5 Jul 2001, Bill Stoddard wrote: > > > I am teetering on a -1 for this patch. You are hacking around a more > > fundamental problem. > > If we cannot fix problems like this w/o impacting the performance of all > > applications that > > need to read files, then APR is seriously broken. > > Huh? If I have a file that I put into a bucket, and I set the offset to > 0, so that the bucket refers to the whole file, then the bucket code needs > to respect that, regardless of what else I do with the file. This is > about making the code orthogonal, so that if I read from the file > someplace else, it doesn't effect my bucket logic. >
If you perform a read on a file and don't specifiy an offset, then you should assume you will be reading from the current file pointer maintained by the system (or by apr_file_t in the XTHREAD case). If you have an apr_file_t open and you are reading from the file someplace else using the fd, then you are screwed. You shouldn't be mixing apr_file_* calls with non apr_file_* calls on the same fd. If you insist on doing this, then you need to ensure that your non apr_file_* calls leaves the file pointer in the proper state when they are done. You definitely shouldn't be horking up apr_file* calls to defend against this case. Bill
