William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > > 3. failing that, we have a bug in APR_LOCK_POSIX that the fname passed > is ignored, so a random one is invented, but a patch at line 129 of > proc_mutex.c could make that hassle disappear. >
Well, I wouldn't consider it a 'bug'. proc_mutex_posix_create ignores fname because of some restrictions on what it can be, and some OS dependency on those restrictions. I will concur that maybe what we should do is 1st try fname and if that fails do what we do now (with the required logging to inform the person). If we all concur that that would be a Good Thing, I can make the required minor adjustments :) -- =========================================================================== 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
