Bojan Smojver
Wed, 23 Jul 2008 04:34:26 -0700
Quoting "Mladen Turk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
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