On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 06:12:17PM -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > - add an apr_pool_t to the sms structure
-1 (non-veto, but awfully close). Uh, why are we doing this? I thought that a pool would be defined in terms of a sms (not now, but at some point). This would not allow that to happen. I'm still not entirely sold on the fact that sms needs locks. I think the locks can be handled at a higher level than sms (i.e. a pool). My $.02. -- justin
