On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 10:26:57AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Hmmm... While looking over some proxy changes, for some > reason my eyes were pulled to apr_temp_dir_get(). Note > that the comments state: > > "Our goal is to find a temporary directory suitable for writing > into. We'll only pay the price once if we're successful -- we > cache our successful find." > > Except we don't (cache); neither in 0.9.x or trunk. > > So is the comment broken or the code? Methinks the code, > but I'm sure one reason was due to potential thread > safety issues... ?
The original apr_temp_dir_get() implementation did use a static variable to cache the result, so that's probably what the comment refers to; but as you suspect it wasn't thread safe so this was fixed. (not sure if the non-thread-safe-code even made it into a release) joe
