From Tue Feb 05 13:08:07 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: Received: (qmail 44016 invoked by uid 500); 5 Feb 2002 13:08:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Delivered-To: mailing list Received: (qmail 44002 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2002 13:08:05 -0000 From: "Brian Havard" To: "" Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 00:07:58 +1000 (EST) Reply-To: "Brian Havard" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 2.10.1999 for OS/2 Warp 4.05 In-Reply-To: <> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: cvs commit: apr STATUS Message-Id: X-Spam-Rating: 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Mon, 4 Feb 2002 11:17:38 -0800, Aaron Bannert wrote: >Can someone please comment on the state of the OS/2 and Netware lock >implementation? Is it unnecessary or even senseless to implement >a cross-process lock on Netware (where I've been told there are >only threads)? On OS/2 the only native mechanism that has cross-process lock behaviour is file locking (which is yuck because then you have to have a lock file). In fact I suspect the only reason we have cross-process locks at all is that some platforms only have file locks so the API was created to fit these platforms' capabilities. Wouldn't it be more useful & portable for the cross-process lock type to have the "lock all" behaviour, considering that on non-threaded platforms it amounts to the same thing? I'd expect that any platform that has threads would also have process sharable mutexes, making a "lock all" API universal to all platforms, threaded or not. Is it ever useful to have the cross-process behaviour in a threaded application? (not meant as a rhetorical question but I can't think of any cases off the top of my head). -- ______________________________________________________________________________ | Brian Havard | "He is not the messiah! | | | He's a very naughty boy!" - Life of Brian | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------