On Thu, 17 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Right, so that basically fits in with option #2. Option #1 has raised
> > various concerns since it was first proposed, including concern over the
> > possible expensiveness of dup() on some OS'es. I just thought I'd
> > document all of the reasonable suggestions for completeness-sake, though
> > at this point I personally prefer one of the latter two options.
>
> I'm sorry, you missed my point. Cache the apr_file_t, but just use
> apr_os_get_file and apr_os_put_file to create a new apr_file_t at the
> begining of the request. This saves us the cost of the dup(), and makes
> us fully portable.
_OH_. But if you're going to do that, why not cache the apr_os_file_t
(which is what I assumed you meant)? That saves you from having to
apr_os_file_get() on every request [granted, that's a cheap operation].
--Cliff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Woolley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charlottesville, VA
