On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 03:35:14PM +0200, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > > > Point out that requirement, and you can change a lot of minds here. But > > > until then, I think you'll continue to see confused/concerned people, not > > > understanding why you are suggesting we toss all of the memory management > > in > > > APR in favor of SMS. > > uh, sorry to have to point this out like this, but your understanding > of the original plan for SMS usage is plain wrong. > > i have no idea what makes you think that anyone is suggesting that > all mman in APR is 'tossed' in favour of sms, and if anyone > else recommends it i will bitch at them persistently until they give > a decent justification, or give up. :)
Here is why I thought that: David Reid wrote: > When we're done we'll have > > locks -> apr_sms_t > sms -> locks -> apr_sms_t > > So personally I don't see the problem and thus I made the change! I guess > maybe it's because people keep saying that we're going to change the pools > to use sms. Why? To get the maximum flexibility we'll need to use sms > throughout so while we may have > > apr_pstrdup(apr_pool_t *pool, char *str) > > we'll end up with > > apr_pstrdup(apr_sms_t *mem_sys, char *str) So no wonder I'm a bit concerned. >... > please, like david did, if you don't like or don't understand > the explanations, please read the code. it's really short, > it's really simple - and it's short and simple _because_ we > [collectively - all of us] have enough experience to realise > that anything else will cause us to have nightmares until the > code's ripped out and burnt. ritually. I haven't complained about the code one bit. Yes, it is simple, but reading it isn't change what I'm talking about... I have an issue with what we're going to *do* with it. And given that I believe SMS with providing storage for a pool, then I question why we have a pool underneath an SMS. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
