Joe Orton wrote: > On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 01:12:05AM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: >> On 2/28/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> If this was a flag to apr_sdbm_open, or was modified to interact with >>> the existing locking logic, I'd have much more faith that this is >>> a reasonable approach. > > The caller could already pass in APR_BUFFERED in the mode parameter to > apr_sdbm_open(), AFAICS.
Sounds great. Let's move this hack to apr_dbm_open's delegate for apr_sdbm_open, and simply ensure apr_sdbm_open honors the APR_BUFFERED flag. If this is moved to apr_dbm_, and this flag true for any SDBM that isn't APR_SHARELOCK'ed, then you'll turn my -.99 to a +1. If they want to combine any bogus combination of APR_BUFFERED and also APR_SHARELOCK in an app's call to apr_sdbm_open() they can be our guest, maybe they will hit the wall and study the correct hacks to make these behave politely together. Bill
