apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From <...@covalent.net>
Subject Re: cvs commit: apr/threadproc/unix thread.c
Date Thu, 07 Jun 2001 15:03:46 GMT

As it happens, this is exactly what I envisioned when SMS was first
discussed.  Namely, a new back-end for pools that can use any allocator.

Ryan

On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:

> > > See, that's where my overall view of "where we hope to get to" differs.
> > > <shrug>  In my mind, APR depends on pools.  Period.  It would require
a
> > > major overhaul for most APR operations to be safe WITHOUT pools (ie, lots
> > > of apr_sms_free operations would have to be added, which is exactly what
> > > the pools are meant to avoid).
>
> no, no, _wrong_!  that's exactly what you _don't_ do, and anyone
> who proposes it, or thinks that that is what is being proposed, i
> will stamp on their fingers or break their keyboard in frustration.
>
> or something.
>
> no.  we are _not_ proposing that pools be replaced [with something
> other than what looks exactly like pools].
>
> same API [pools], different implementation.
>
> doing otherwise is just.. _nuts_!
>
> you know that, _i_ know that.  what on earth makes you think _i_ think
> otherwise???
>
> darn :)
>
> luke
>
>


_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom                        	rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mime
View raw message