Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
> How would we specify file-based mutexes? Realizing that the majority of our
> mutex create calls are passing in NULL right now, so that's not goodness for
> all mutex types. Guess we'd have to deal with those as needed.
>
Part of the SSLMutex stuff started me thinking about just this, and
about how we could streamline this mutex stuff. I was thinking about
a mechanism which follows the file-based Mutex stuff. For example,
AcceptMutex sem:<path>
SSLMutex file:<path>
FooMutex default
where every mutex has a method and (optional) path. For those that
don't pass a path (or filename), we auto-create our own.
One issue which we need to resolve is whether we completely "honor"
the pathname, or whether we try to make it "unique" by tacking
on something at the end (ala the pid).
--
===========================================================================
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
