Cliff Woolley wrote: >On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, [UTF-8] Branko Äibej wrote: > > > >>It's fairly portable on most every Unix variant. It just so happens that >>APR isn't about portability across Unixes, so we really should have >>wrappers. We have apr_os_thread_current, so we should also have an >>apr_os_proc_current. >> >> > >Of course we all realize that not all operating systems *have* processes >(cough Netware cough :). Not that that has to be a problem... >apr_os_proc_current() could just return a constant in that case. Just >bringing it up. +1 on concept. > > Well, Netware does define apr_os_proc_t, so presumably it has other magic to make it work.
What worries me is that we don't seem to have an apr_os_proc_get, either. Is that just another ommossion, or was it deliberate? -- Brane Äibej <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
