On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > Seriously, though, there is no reason for the setaside function to need > a full memory allocation system (pool) passed just to do a bit of byte > stuffing within a buffer.
It's not just a "bit of byte stuffing within a buffer" at all. The pool has some lifetime associated with it. The reason for passing in a pool is to be able to say to the buckets code "this resource should live at least THIS long". That also implies that some data structures (not data!) will need to be copied into that pool, ie an apr_file_t or an apr_mmap_t. It would only work to just pass an arbitrary storage pointer if we actually copied all of the data represented by the bucket into that buffer, and that's not the idea at all. --Cliff -------------------------------------------------------------- Cliff Woolley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charlottesville, VA
