Moving this discussion over to [EMAIL PROTECTED] reply there ;-) At 11:28 AM 3/27/2003, Jim Jagielski wrote: >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 :)
Or we do what win32 does for posix, and fold invalid '/'s and other restricted characters into underbars. Or I was just musing... what if we MD5 hash the win32/posix names into something short and sweet for the lifetime of the mutex? Bill
