As it happens, this is exactly what I envisioned when SMS was first discussed. Namely, a new back-end for pools that can use any allocator.
Ryan On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > > > See, that's where my overall view of "where we hope to get to" differs. > > > <shrug> In my mind, APR depends on pools. Period. It would require a > > > major overhaul for most APR operations to be safe WITHOUT pools (ie, lots > > > of apr_sms_free operations would have to be added, which is exactly what > > > the pools are meant to avoid). > > no, no, _wrong_! that's exactly what you _don't_ do, and anyone > who proposes it, or thinks that that is what is being proposed, i > will stamp on their fingers or break their keyboard in frustration. > > or something. > > no. we are _not_ proposing that pools be replaced [with something > other than what looks exactly like pools]. > > same API [pools], different implementation. > > doing otherwise is just.. _nuts_! > > you know that, _i_ know that. what on earth makes you think _i_ think > otherwise??? > > darn :) > > luke > > _______________________________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] 406 29th St. San Francisco, CA 94131 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
