Now we're just decreasing the signal-to-noise ratio. :)
-aaron
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 09:45:57AM -0400, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> Ooops! And the list grows with each post we make :-)
>
> proc_pthread, proc_pthread, proc_pthread...
>
> Bill
>
> > On Wednesday 19 September 2001 09:27 pm, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> > > proc_thread doesn't tell me anything. If I google for proc_thread, I get no
> > > hits. If I google pthread, I at least get hits that I can search through to
> > > find anything to do with a 'lock'. pthread is easier to read than
> > > proc_thread. Yea, not great arguments for using pthread, but at least as
> > > strong as arguments to use proc_thread.
> >
> > what if we went with proc_pthread? I just googled it, and there is a page
> > of hits, all related to this very subject. :-)
> >
> > Ryan
> >
> > >
> > > Bill
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Ryan Bloom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Bill Stoddard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 11:59 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Standardize AcceptMutex config
> > >
> > > > On Wednesday 19 September 2001 08:56 pm, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 07:53:47PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > > > > > > Why is calling it proc_pthread silly? We are talking about a
> > > > > > > pthread based process lock. Personally, I think Apache 1.3 should
> > > > > > > be changed, especially since it hasn't been released yet. My
> > > > > > > concern is that calling it a pthread lock makes it sound like we
> > > > > > > are just locking threads.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fine, change one or the other. Having it inconsistent is *silly*.
> > > > > > Personally, I think Apache 1.3's pthread makes more sense given the
> > > > > > context. -- justin
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree with Justin.
> > > >
> > > > That's fine, could you please explain why? I am trying to understand
> > > > this POV. Why don't you think that calling out the proc part is
> > > > important? I don't mind being wrong, but I do mind not knowing why I am
> > > > wrong. :-)
> > > >
> > > > Ryan
> > > >
> > > > ______________________________________________________________
> > > > Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > --
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> >
