apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <ad...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: SMS stuff
Date Fri, 08 Jun 2001 05:03:40 GMT
From: "David Reid" <dreid@jetnet.co.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 5:19 PM

> We could implement pool using sms but we'd loose a great deal of flexibility
> and a great opportunity to make APR even more useful.
> As each sms has the opportunity to control exactly how it locks, allocates,
> frees and so on they have enormous potential to be varied and written for
> specific purposes, each one optimised.  This means we have a memory system
> that can be tailored, so one size doesn't have to suit everyone.
> What's the difference to pools?  You are in control of how the memory is
> used.  Pools don't really give you that.  do we need that flexibility?
> Well, given we have the opportunity and my magic ball is out of warranty,
> I'd say Yes.  Justin it would appear says No.

Just a word from here, yes.  This is the way to go.

Every quality library provides a fn hook for the malloc and free functions
(such as regex, expat, and many many more.)  The sms design takes that one
(very thorough) step beyond.


From: "David Reid" <dreid@jetnet.co.uk>
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 4:19 AM

> Don't believe that was how it happenned at all.  I was very much a cynic
> when I started looking at the sms stuff.  The way that  afew people started
> raving on about how cool it all was made me shudder and that was why I
> looked at it in such detail.  The reviewing of the code an opening my mind
> to the possibilities made me see where it could go.  To be perfectly blunt
> Sanders constant evangelising made me more anti sms than pro it.  It was the
> code that convinced me it could do a lot for APR :(  But you weren't to know
> that as it's not something I've said to people before.

Just had to say it, you don't think we notice such things ???  I was actually
very impressed to see the 'system', al la open source development, work so
effectively and quickly!  I actually expected you to say something along these 
lines a week or few ago ;-)

> Well, I'll try, but I guess if this horse is dead then we may as well bury
> it :(  I'd hate to think that we'd do that at this stage as more work should
> be done to try and justify the potential that some of us see in sms.  That
> said if the door has already been bolted then the effort that would be
> wasted in developing sms further would be just that, wasted, so we should
> move on...  Oops, was this really a "glass half full" statement... :=)

I find it amusing that, reading back three months, David, you were the EXTREME
sceptic :-)  This horse isn't dead, and these are [similar to] the distinctions
between "The Two Filter Schemas".  A ton of that debate was over semantics, and
very little had to do with the philosophy.  And we ended up with a solution par
excelante because of the thoroughness of the debates.

I am well beyond 100% in support of the sms schema.  The only question is what
is which, do we wrap the pool schema in sms, or do 'pools' become sms?

Greg's argument (and I'm leaning that way) says 'pools are now widely deployed'.
Grow a pool into an sms, don't break anyone's code along the way (by making the
default sms our beloved pool schema) and we are in strong shape.


View raw message