apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ryan Bloom" <...@covalent.net>
Subject RE: [design] work around new apr_poll leakage?
Date Mon, 22 Jul 2002 15:09:56 GMT
Fine.  Congratulations.  Yet again we are stopped from making any
progress because people refuse to work together and instead we have to
use fscking vetos to play together.

The old API sucks.  It is unusable, causes mistakes, and doesn't allow
for a fully featured API.  But let's put it back.

I'm going away for a few more days.  I was a lot happier when I wasn't
reading this e-mail list.


Ryan Bloom
rbb@covalent.net           rbb@apache.org

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Pane [mailto:brianp@apache.org]
> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 8:07 AM
> To: rbb@covalent.net
> Cc: dev@apr.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [design] work around new apr_poll leakage?
> Ryan Bloom wrote:
> >>The current API has a memory leak that makes it unsuitable for
> >>general-purpose use (including the httpd).  That's why I vetoed it.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Thatis just BS.  This conversation started today with a solution to
> >memory leak.
> >
> The conversation started with the showstopper in the httpd STATUS.
> My veto from three days ago still stands:
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=apr-dev&m=102705248212752
> I'm happy to see the increased discussion of potential fixes, but that
> discussion alone doesn't resolve the veto.  The only two ways to
> the veto are to: remove the new poll code, or replace it with a
> that doesn't have the memory leak and O(n) scalability problem.
> --Brian

View raw message