On Monday 19 November 2001 12:47 pm, Aaron Bannert wrote: > On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 12:09:56PM -0800, Ryan Bloom wrote: > > On Monday 19 November 2001 09:19 am, Aaron Bannert wrote: > > > What is the right way to handle this? I don't think we should we be > > > conditionally compiling declarations, only implementations. We can > > > either go for runtime errors (APR_ENOTIMPL) when functionality is > > > non-existant (--disable-threads), or we'll have to go around putting > > > #if blocks around all the code references. > > > > We should always opt for compile time errors over run-time errors, > > because it makes the error easier to see and fix. I would say, fix > > mod_ssl by #if'ing the code. > > There are many other places where we make calls to the lock API without > checking APR_HAS_THREADS. I'm not so sure anymore that APR_HAS_THREADS > is even appropriate for the entire lock API (eg. crossprocess locks).
It isn't appropriate for the full lock API, it is only appropriate for the thread locks. > For the locks that do depend on a threading library (apr_thread_*_t) > how about we #error if the header was included but APR_HAS_THREADS > is not defined? I wouldn't #error, I would just #ifdef the whole file personally. Otherwise, you will need to conditionally include the header file, which always seem like more trouble than it's worth. But that is just a personal preference of mine. Ryan ______________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------
