Re: Changing the order of cleanup for some core objects

[Mladen Turk]

Joe Orton wrote:

To be clear, I am not trying to argue that this problem can be easily fixed given the constraints of the current reslist API. But the APR pools design has lasted essentially intact for over 10 years; I will continue to be concerned about any line of argument which goes:

1. we designed this API, shipped it, woo
2. oh dear, seems the API doesn't really work well with APR pools
3. hmmm, but we can't change the API now since it's shipped
4. so we need to change APR pools!

Obviously, however much you change APR pools, people will still be able to follow this line of argument. So we need to differentiate between merely being at step (2) of that road to nowhere and finding a case for a generally useful enhancement to the pools API.

That would be mine concern as well if pool API was changed.
It wasn't changed a bit except adding the possibility to have
pre_cleanup that behaves like:

apr_pool_create(&s, pool)
apr_pool_cleanup_register(s, foo, cleanup)
...
apr_pool_create(&bar, pool)
/* Always make sure it's executed first */
apr_pool_cleanup_kill(s, foo, cleanup)
apr_pool_cleanup_register(s, foo, cleanup)
...

is actually the:
apr_pool_pre_cleanup_register(pool, foo, cleanup)

Without a need to create an extra pool and making sure
it's a last one. Nothing more.

Regards
--
^(TM)