Aaron Bannert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 04:48:12PM -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)
> >
> > This patch would seem to implement this:
>
> ++1 (in concept, untested).
>
> Let's get this committed, work out the kinks and go with it.
will-do, probably in next half-hour
--
Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PGP public key at web site:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
