Quoting "Mladen Turk" <mturk@apache.org>:
> With Joe's proposal the additional pool for reslist and the
> single cleanup registered there is actually the pre_cleanup,
> so why not using that? We'll preserve 8K of memory to the user
> simply by using that.
I'll try to summarise like this:
- pre_cleanup was invented to address resources that allocate their
own pools, but without ugly hacks (current reslist worked fine for the
ones that don't)
- this changed original behaviour somewhat, so the API is no longer
exactly the same
With both of the above in mind, I'd say making current reslist
behaviour different may have undesirable consequences, so it probably
cannot be done on the stable branch (you noted that yourself), which
is for the life of 1.x. Not good.
Joe's approach can be a whole new thing for people that need per
resource pools, but with a typical APR design pattern.
But, I could be completely wrong about all this. So, the more input we
can get from the list, the better. Any which way we choose to go, I'll
help with testing.
PS. As I said before, I'd even be happy with that 3-way
apr_reslist_create_ex() approach, so that people can choose what they
really like.
--
Bojan
|