From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 10:41 PM
> The other option is key-based. I am not adverse to adding an apr_int32_t > flags > arg to apr_shm_create()/attach(), that could request a filebased or keybased > apr_shm_t. It goes without saying [so I'm saying it] that we would have APR_SHM_DEFAULT, APR_SHM_KEYBASED and APR_SHM_FILEBASED options, and if you pass a different flag value to the attach() than was passed to create(), you've horked yourself. And without a filename, the non-APR_SHM_DEFAULT options would fail or be ignored. The reason I suggested the flags now, before the API is widely adopted, is that an APR_SHM_READONLY to attach() would be extremely useful for debugging some shm applications. Even if some platforms ignored the flag because they could not support it, we would still profit by other platforms noting the bugs. This was the same theory I applied when I wrote the original patch to allow apr_pool's to be transformed to read-only. Bill
