Re: [PROPOSAL] cgi_exec_info_t: detached & addrspace fields combined

[Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com>]

OK, the apr_procattr_addrspace_set() interface is sufficient to solve
this problem, right?  And there's no issue with back-porting that to the
APR 0.9 branch?  The only issue is how to use that interface from
mod_cgi/the Netware MPM without requiring an httpd major MMN bump?  So
why not just overload the 'detached' field in cgi_exec_info_t inside
mod_cgi/Netware MPM?  That's should cause too much damange.

-1 on overloading apr_procattr_detach_set() to do this, that's bad API
design, and uglifying the APR API just to satisfy an httpd binary compat
requirement just seems very wrong.

If the interface in APR HEAD is sufficient to solve the problem there's
no reason why this is an APR 1.0 showstopper either.

joe

Re: [PROPOSAL] cgi_exec_info_t: detached & addrspace fields combined

[David Reid <da...@jetnet.co.uk>]

> OK, the apr_procattr_addrspace_set() interface is sufficient to solve
> this problem, right?  And there's no issue with back-porting that to the
> APR 0.9 branch?  The only issue is how to use that interface from
> mod_cgi/the Netware MPM without requiring an httpd major MMN bump?  So
> why not just overload the 'detached' field in cgi_exec_info_t inside
> mod_cgi/Netware MPM?  That's should cause too much damange.
>
> -1 on overloading apr_procattr_detach_set() to do this, that's bad API
> design, and uglifying the APR API just to satisfy an httpd binary compat
> requirement just seems very wrong.

It does.

> If the interface in APR HEAD is sufficient to solve the problem there's
> no reason why this is an APR 1.0 showstopper either.

Right.

The issue is more that if we *don't* include an api change that is
subsequently back-ported to apr 0.9 then we will have functionality in apr
0.9 and 1.1 but not in 1.0 - which just seems plain wrong and dumb... That's
why I stopped the process.

david

Re: [PROPOSAL] cgi_exec_info_t: detached & addrspace fields combined

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

At 04:17 AM 6/28/2004, Joe Orton wrote:
>OK, the apr_procattr_addrspace_set() interface is sufficient to solve
>this problem, right?  And there's no issue with back-porting that to the
>APR 0.9 branch?  The only issue is how to use that interface from
>mod_cgi/the Netware MPM without requiring an httpd major MMN bump?  So
>why not just overload the 'detached' field in cgi_exec_info_t inside
>mod_cgi/Netware MPM?  That's should cause too much damange.

Agreed, if that's a private structure, no bumps needed.

>-1 on overloading apr_procattr_detach_set() to do this, that's bad API
>design, and uglifying the APR API just to satisfy an httpd binary compat
>requirement just seems very wrong.

I agree.  If you want to overload the bit flags, that's fine, because the actual
apr_procattr_t should be opaque to the user, correct?

But having two seperate fn's to set detached v.s. addrspace seems like
a much better public API.

Re: [PROPOSAL] cgi_exec_info_t: detached & addrspace fields combined

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

At 04:17 AM 6/28/2004, Joe Orton wrote:
>OK, the apr_procattr_addrspace_set() interface is sufficient to solve
>this problem, right?  And there's no issue with back-porting that to the
>APR 0.9 branch?  The only issue is how to use that interface from
>mod_cgi/the Netware MPM without requiring an httpd major MMN bump?  So
>why not just overload the 'detached' field in cgi_exec_info_t inside
>mod_cgi/Netware MPM?  That's should cause too much damange.

Agreed, if that's a private structure, no bumps needed.

>-1 on overloading apr_procattr_detach_set() to do this, that's bad API
>design, and uglifying the APR API just to satisfy an httpd binary compat
>requirement just seems very wrong.

I agree.  If you want to overload the bit flags, that's fine, because the actual
apr_procattr_t should be opaque to the user, correct?

But having two seperate fn's to set detached v.s. addrspace seems like
a much better public API.