Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 35847 invoked by uid 500); 5 Dec 2001 03:41:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 35836 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2001 03:41:30 -0000 X-Authentication-Warning: cobra.cs.Virginia.EDU: jcw5q owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 22:41:37 -0500 (EST) From: Cliff Woolley X-X-Sender: To: Brian Pane cc: Subject: Re: Pools rewrite [2] In-Reply-To: <3C0D9259.2000200@cnet.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, Brian Pane wrote: > I think there's an easy answer. > > The thread-specific pools in this implementation are really > just pools that happen to own their own free lists. >... > > If a future async implementation has this same property--i.e., > pools can be "passed" from one thread to another, but a given > pool can only have its methods invoked from one thread at a > time--then we shouldn't have any problems. Okay. The situation (real or imagined) I was leery of was not allocation but pool destruction... what happens when you have a subpool of a one-thread-at-a-time pool that was created in one thread and gets destroyed in another pool, if the parent pool is still active in the other thread somehow? I don't have a specific case I can name where this would happen, but it seems possible. [I'm perfectly happy to be told I'm imagining things and this just isn't a problem... if that's the case, great!] --Cliff -------------------------------------------------------------- Cliff Woolley cliffwoolley@yahoo.com Charlottesville, VA