apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Cliff Woolley <cliffwool...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: file/mmap buckets, subrequests, pools, 2.0.18
Date Sat, 09 Jun 2001 01:42:42 GMT
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> Seriously, though, there is no reason for the setaside function to need
> a full memory allocation system (pool) passed just to do a bit of byte
> stuffing within a buffer.

It's not just a "bit of byte stuffing within a buffer" at all.  The pool
has some lifetime associated with it.  The reason for passing in a pool is
to be able to say to the buckets code "this resource should live at least
THIS long".  That also implies that some data structures (not data!) will
need to be copied into that pool, ie an apr_file_t or an apr_mmap_t.  It
would only work to just pass an arbitrary storage pointer if we actually
copied all of the data represented by the bucket into that buffer, and
that's not the idea at all.

--Cliff


--------------------------------------------------------------
   Cliff Woolley
   cliffwoolley@yahoo.com
   Charlottesville, VA



Mime
View raw message