subversion-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ivan Zhakov <i...@visualsvn.com>
Subject Re: svn commit: r1705060 - in /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_ra_serf: ra_serf.h serf.c util.c
Date Thu, 24 Sep 2015 18:50:11 GMT
On 24 September 2015 at 19:15, Julian Foad <julianfoad@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>> Julian Foad wrote:
>>> Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>>>> [...] we also have many functions that accepts just POOL and use
>>>> it as scratch pool. And we also have many functions that uses it as
>>>> result pool.
>>>
>>> Yes, we do have many of those. That was the Old Way. Naming the pools
>>> 'scratch_pool' or 'result_pool' is the New Way. We seem to generally
>>> agree that is better, and sometimes we rename the single 'pool'
>>> argument of old functions to either 'scratch_pool' or 'result_pool'.
>>
>> Could you please give me link to the thread where we discussed The New
>> Way? Yes, we use result_pool/scratch_pool, but I don't remember
>> discussion about never using just one POOL.
>
> I don't know if this was ever explicitly discussed. (The thread where
> the two-pools paradigm was first publicly is: Subject "result_pool and
> scratch_pool", from Greg Stein, on 2008-10-06, archived at e.g.
> http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2008-10/0268.shtml )
>
As far I remember this thread about  two pools paradigm itself
(result_pool and scratch_pool). It's not about making all functions
follow two pools paradigm.  Some of API introduced in 1.9 doesn't
follow this paradigm for some reason. Please understand me correctly:
I really like two pool paradigm, but sometimes it's not necessary,
especially for local helpers.

-- 
Ivan Zhakov

Mime
View raw message