On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > At 01:54 PM 3/5/2003, Joe Orton wrote: > >> But why not just register apr_unix_file_cleanup for cleanup like in > > > >Indeed, I wonder it was implement this way too. I think the change you > >suggest is a little more intrusive than mine, as currently some callers > >are compensating for the fact that no child_cleanup is registered. > > I agree we must register a cleanup so that we don't have to jump through > hoops later. APR app developers should be able to trust that there is > already a cleanup registered for such objects they create.
They already do :-(( > >I also wonder why the code goes to these lengths when on Unix setting > >the CLOEXEC flag would probably suffice. > > We should do *either*; if CLOEXEC is supported and can be toggled > per our API (_set/_unset) then that can be the preferred method, to protect > ourselves from non-apr callers of exec(). (This goes for files, too.) THANKS !!! Perhaps then also have s.th. like an "alias" apr_pipe_(un)set_inherit to apr_file_(un)set_inherit ? It perhaps would make some lines of code more clear... < may be ignored > Just 'cause I currently saw this: why is it named apr_file_cleanup on 1/2OS aaeh OS/2 and apr_unix_file_cleanup ? And it seems to be only named file_cleanup for win32. Functions are also named apr_file_open or apr_file_pipe_create for unix. So ich someone touches this perhaps we can also do some cleanup for thos cleanup_fns ? Ok, I can hear you till here go *waaah* ;-)))) If I am right with my limited apache/apr experience this functions should be/"are" hidden from users so it should not be real problem ? < /may be ignored > -- Bjoern A. Zeeb bzeeb at Zabbadoz dot NeT 56 69 73 69 74 http://www.zabbadoz.net/
