apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian Pane <brian.p...@cnet.com>
Subject Re: Breaking something? Now is the time?
Date Fri, 28 Jun 2002 19:22:01 GMT
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

>On Fri, Jun 28, 2002 at 12:11:09PM -0700, Brian Pane wrote:
>  
>
>>I want to break something: binary compatibility for the pool API.
>>
>>This has been on my list for a long time, but I haven't yet had
>>time to implement it.
>>
>>What I'm thinking of is the following:
>>
>>* Preface the apr_pool_t structure with a set of function
>>  pointers for the pool's "methods": alloc, free, destroy,
>>  create subpool, etc.
>>    
>>
>
>Sounds like SMS.  We could never overcome speed limitations and we
>always seemed to place blame on the function pointers as the reason
>why the SMS performance wasn't as good as pools.  
>

I think SMS's use of a wrapper function to do the indirect method
call was the main problem, which is why we'd have to use a macro
instead if we reintroduced a function pointer model.

>I'd want to see performance metrics saying that we aren't going to
>see a massive performance decrease with this.  -- justin
>  
>

Definitely.

--Brian




Mime
View raw message