On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 03:02:44PM -0400, Cliff Woolley wrote: > 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...
Me three. I thought SMS was to be the underlying memory abstraction, and pools would be implemented on *top* of those. I'm not with Justin on the locking, though: I can see that an SMS would need to use locks to protect itself. But I would recommend that we pass in an apr_lock_t *if* an SMS should bother with locking. i.e. pass NULL if the SMS won't need to worry about it (it will only be used from a single thread) That implies that somebody has to alloc a lock outside, but we know that we can do that: an SMS around malloc(), a pool around that, then a lock using that pool. We can then pass that lock to SMS(my-custom-bugger). Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
