This thread is getting rather long, but I don't see the motivation.
What is the requirement for this range locking? We don't have to do
everything imaginable simply because we can. Every time we load features
into APR(UTIL), that just means we need to maintain them. Why do we *need*
this feature?
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 12:38:23AM +0200, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 08:30:23AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
BTW, APR already has named pipes. Just what are we trying to solve here?
We only have them implemented for Unix. OS/2 returns an ENOTIMPL and
This thread is getting rather long, but I don't see the motivation.
What is the requirement for this range locking? We don't have to do
everything imaginable simply because we can. Every time we load features
into APR(UTIL), that just means we need to maintain them. Why do we *need*
this
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 11:45:07AM +0100, David Reid wrote:
This thread is getting rather long, but I don't see the motivation.
What is the requirement for this range locking?
multiple threads accessing same memory range.
see tdb for the motivation.
tdb is gdbm-like simultaneous reader,
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 03:04:10AM -0700, Greg Stein wrote:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 12:38:23AM +0200, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 08:30:23AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
BTW, APR already has named pipes. Just what are we trying to solve here?
We
or, you mandate providing locking, emulating regions by
... errr providing ref-counting on a global lock (yuck!)
hm, that don't work. nope: have to do the lock and
lock_region, then have a means for Users to detect
that a lock_region function is available / supported.
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Greg Stein wrote:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 12:38:23AM +0200, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 08:30:23AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
BTW, APR already has named pipes. Just what are we trying to solve here?
We only have them
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 08:04:53AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, APR already has named pipes. Just what are we trying to solve
here?
We only have them implemented for Unix. OS/2 returns an ENOTIMPL and Windows
simply doesn't have an implementation for it.
So, the
I can see why it might be useful in shared memory, so if it can be worked
into any shared sms's then fine (I can see a number of ways of doing it
there, but all are messy) but it's not something we need to add to the
general purpose sms's, IMHO.
It can be added to the individual sms's header file
Which is also a requirement. When we call namedpipe_create, we have to RETURN
SOMETHING! Win32 will create a pipe handle (not the same as the read/write
file
handle.) Every (NT/2000) machine could Create or Connect to get that pipe
handle.
But once that pipe handle is closed, the pipe
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 10:58 AM
Which is also a requirement. When we call namedpipe_create, we have to
RETURN
SOMETHING! Win32 will create a pipe handle (not the same as the read/write
file
handle.) Every (NT/2000) machine could Create or Connect to
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
But that's not thinking at a wide enough scope. There are lots of reasons
why I chose the analogy of bucket brigades for the original design, but one
is that we want to put the fire out. Web applications are very sensitive
to latency. The only
[ CCed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 02:32:25PM -0700, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
(4) Tested configuration (/etc/rc.d/init.d/apache configtest) and got
the following error message:
Syntax error on line 1027 of /usr/local/apache/conf/httpd.conf:
Cannot load
13 matches
Mail list logo
