httpd-apreq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stas Bekman <s...@stason.org>
Subject Re: cvs tagged as v1_1 (was Re: 1.1_rc4)
Date Mon, 13 Jan 2003 22:50:24 GMT
Eli Marmor wrote:
[...]
> The only justification of requiring the request_rec is the pool.
> So we can move the code of the function to a sub-function (called
> "apr_request_new") and leave only the following in the original
> function:
[...]

you do need the pool variable because we now use that much cleaner way to 
allocate memory in apreq-2.0. So instead of requiring request_rec, the API 
could ask directly for the pool. That pool can be easily created by other 
apps (not httpd) since apr will be already linked in.

So I suppose what you suggest (in this example) is to use only the really 
needed elements in the API, rather than passing more app-specific objects, 
which is the case with request_rec.

__________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman            JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/     mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org
mailto:stas@stason.org http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com
http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org   http://ticketmaster.com


Mime
View raw message