William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Henry Jen wrote:
+/**
+ * Get owner of the task currently been executed by the thread.
+ * @param thd The thread is executing a task
+ * @param owner Pointer to receive owner of the task.
+ * @return APR_SUCCESS if the owner is retrieved successfully
+ */
+APR_DEC
Henry Jen wrote:
>
> +/**
> + * Get owner of the task currently been executed by the thread.
> + * @param thd The thread is executing a task
> + * @param owner Pointer to receive owner of the task.
> + * @return APR_SUCCESS if the owner is retrieved successfully
> + */
> +APR_DECLARE(apr_status
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Henry,
thank you for your submission.
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=492362
Please remember, the API is flexible until 1.3.0 (or 2.0.0) is tagged and
released, at which point the new files become subject to the (rather strict)
versioning rules.
Hi
Henry,
thank you for your submission.
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=492362
Please remember, the API is flexible until 1.3.0 (or 2.0.0) is tagged and
released, at which point the new files become subject to the (rather strict)
versioning rules.
Yours,
Bill
Henry Jen wrote:
> H
Henry Jen wrote:
Hi,
Attached please find the patch for thread pool implementation, looking
forward to see it get committed.
I just realized that I sent the wrong patch, which did not drop the
copyright notice. Attached is the correct patch. :-)
Just want to make sure the consensus is th
Hi,
Attached please find the patch for thread pool implementation, looking
forward to see it get committed.
Cheers,
Henry
Index: aprutil.dsp
===
--- aprutil.dsp (revision 433720)
+++ aprutil.dsp (working copy)
@@ -240,6 +240,10
On Wed, 2006-09-27 at 22:56 -0400, Garrett Rooney wrote:
> Just for the record, nobody is saying that Sun shouldn't "keep
> copyright" on the code. None of our CLAs involve a copyright
> assignment, so no matter what happens Sun (just like any contributor)
> will keep the copyright on whatever co
On 9/27/06, Bojan Smojver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 2006-09-27 at 12:56 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> or, to the project;
>
> do we want to change the very nature of collecting individual copyright
> statements in NOTICE from all major contributors? Do we believe this
> wo
On Wed, 2006-09-27 at 12:56 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> or, to the project;
>
> do we want to change the very nature of collecting individual copyright
> statements in NOTICE from all major contributors? Do we believe this
> would encourage other worthwhile contributions?
After r
Cliff Schmidt wrote:
>>
>> I don't know if there's anything specific Cliff would like to see with
>> respect to undoing an advertising request once posted. Cliff? Best way
>> to unencumber this, now? (Note, code was originally submitted with Sun
>> Copyright notices.)
>
> Maybe I'm missing some
On 9/27/06, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Maybe I'm missing some context, but I don't see what the problem is
with allowing a contributor to have their copyright notice placed in
the NOTICE file. I'm familiar with the history behind the BSD
advertising clause issue, but that was not
On 9/26/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Henry Jen wrote:
>> 2. Remove the copyright notice and apply source header to be conforming
>> with "Source File Headers for Code Developed at the ASF" section in [1].
>> Our legal would like to see the copy
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Henry Jen wrote:
>> 2. Remove the copyright notice and apply source header to be conforming
>> with "Source File Headers for Code Developed at the ASF" section in [1].
>> Our legal would like to see the copyright notice in NOTICE file per
>> option 1.b. But I am not su
Henry Jen wrote:
>
> 2. Remove the copyright notice and apply source header to be conforming
> with "Source File Headers for Code Developed at the ASF" section in [1].
> Our legal would like to see the copyright notice in NOTICE file per
> option 1.b. But I am not sure how APR would like to deal w
Hi,
Attached is an updated patch, which include following changes since last
one:
1. The check for current thread not to be the owner include a hack for
the Win32 bug where apr_os_thread_current is returning a HANDLE instead
of a pointer to HANDLE as apr_os_thread_get does.
2. Remove the c
I'm +1 on adopting this in trunk so that the developers can spend some
time with the API, and we can begin duking out the details.
I suspect it could use a bit of tweaking, but it's easier to do that in
svn - the email thread has already yielded a cleaner API.
Henry Jen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Attached
Hi,
Attached please find the latest patch to support thread_pool(the last
one had a bug and cannot be merged cleanly), which has two enhancement
from earlier patch:
1. Ownership support: Now when submit a task to the thread pool, an
owner identity can be specified. Which can be used to remov
17 matches
Mail list logo
