On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > 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).
I was thinking the exact same thing, actually... --Cliff -------------------------------------------------------------- Cliff Woolley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charlottesville, VA
