You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@apr.apache.org by Brian Havard <br...@kheldar.apana.org.au> on 2001/01/26 07:15:12 UTC
apr_poll inconsistency
I've noticed that some implementations of apr_poll clear the apr_pollfd_t
they're given, requiring reapplication of apr_add_poll_socket()s, and some
don't.
Apart from being inconsistent, it's a problem for me because the
implementation I wrote for OS/2 doesn't clear the list but doesn't prevent
duplicates either so when an app re-adds after an apr_poll() it results in
duplicates in the list (it's just an array of descriptors). ApacheBench
(ab) on OS/2 is currently broken because of this but I'm not sure what the
correct fix is.
I'd like to see consistent behaviour from apr_poll() on all platforms but
which? My own preference is to not clear the list & therefore not require
repeated apr_add_poll_socket() calls. This would require the select based
implementations to copy their fd_sets before calling select().
Thoughts?
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| Brian Havard | "He is not the messiah! |
| brianh@kheldar.apana.org.au | He's a very naughty boy!" - Life of Brian |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: apr_poll inconsistency
Posted by Brian Havard <br...@kheldar.apana.org.au>.
On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 07:42:10 -0800 (PST), rbb@covalent.net wrote:
>My own opinion Brian, is to choose an implementation you like, and make
>that a standard.
I prefer the more diplomatic approach & allow others to comment first
before I go changing things that may affect them. Someone might have a good
reason why the other way is better.
>If that means we clear the apr_poolfd_t, then cool, if
>not, that's cool too. If you make the choice, and don't want to change
>on Unix, I'll do it.
I should be able to handle it, but thanks anyway (yes, I have a unix box
too).
>On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Brian Havard wrote:
>
>> I've noticed that some implementations of apr_poll clear the apr_pollfd_t
>> they're given, requiring reapplication of apr_add_poll_socket()s, and some
>> don't.
>>
>> Apart from being inconsistent, it's a problem for me because the
>> implementation I wrote for OS/2 doesn't clear the list but doesn't prevent
>> duplicates either so when an app re-adds after an apr_poll() it results in
>> duplicates in the list (it's just an array of descriptors). ApacheBench
>> (ab) on OS/2 is currently broken because of this but I'm not sure what the
>> correct fix is.
>>
>> I'd like to see consistent behaviour from apr_poll() on all platforms but
>> which? My own preference is to not clear the list & therefore not require
>> repeated apr_add_poll_socket() calls. This would require the select based
>> implementations to copy their fd_sets before calling select().
>>
>> Thoughts?
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| Brian Havard | "He is not the messiah! |
| brianh@kheldar.apana.org.au | He's a very naughty boy!" - Life of Brian |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: apr_poll inconsistency
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
My own opinion Brian, is to choose an implementation you like, and make
that a standard. If that means we clear the apr_poolfd_t, then cool, if
not, that's cool too. If you make the choice, and don't want to change
on Unix, I'll do it.
Ryan
On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Brian Havard wrote:
> I've noticed that some implementations of apr_poll clear the apr_pollfd_t
> they're given, requiring reapplication of apr_add_poll_socket()s, and some
> don't.
>
> Apart from being inconsistent, it's a problem for me because the
> implementation I wrote for OS/2 doesn't clear the list but doesn't prevent
> duplicates either so when an app re-adds after an apr_poll() it results in
> duplicates in the list (it's just an array of descriptors). ApacheBench
> (ab) on OS/2 is currently broken because of this but I'm not sure what the
> correct fix is.
>
> I'd like to see consistent behaviour from apr_poll() on all platforms but
> which? My own preference is to not clear the list & therefore not require
> repeated apr_add_poll_socket() calls. This would require the select based
> implementations to copy their fd_sets before calling select().
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> | Brian Havard | "He is not the messiah! |
> | brianh@kheldar.apana.org.au | He's a very naughty boy!" - Life of Brian |
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------