On Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 09:49:23AM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote: > I would prefer moving to a situation where the function that allows > you to specify the implementation is always available and > APR_LOCK_DEFAULT is always available. > > One way to do that: > > . get rid of apr_lock_create_np() and apr_proc_mutex_create_np() > > . add new required parameter to apr_lock_create() and > apr_proc_mutex_create() for specifying implementation (expecting > most callers to pass APR_LOCK_DEFAULT)
I was about to say the same thing (even had a message written last night to that effect). So, +1. -- justin
