Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Errors-To: <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20040725125153.048fac28@pop3.rowe-clan.net>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 12:53:01 -0500
To: "Sander Striker" <striker@apache.org>
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Subject: RE: apr pool realloc?
Cc: "'Nick Kew'" <nick@webthing.com>, "'Branko Cibej'" <brane@xbc.nu>,
        <dev@apr.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <20040725122816.872D860D98F@striker.xs4all.nl>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.53.0407251316580.1371@hugin.webthing.com>
 <20040725122816.872D860D98F@striker.xs4all.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 07:28 AM 7/25/2004, Sander Striker wrote:
>> From: Nick Kew [mailto:nick@webthing.com] 
>> 
>> If you (or anyone) can dig up a URL for the previous 
>> discussion and reason for the objection, that would be 
>> useful, too.  A technical objection ("risk of something 
>> breaking" or "less efficient than what I posted") would be 
>> important to know about; a philosophical objection can safely 
>> be overruled:-)
>
>The objection was mostly philosophical.  Lack of demand.

Heh - when you consider that the vformatter routine for our own
apr_psprintf could not have been efficiently written without such
an apr_prealloc, I'd think that lack of demand is a pretty bogus
argument against :)

Bill