On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 03:03:23PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 10:10:07PM +0100, David Reid wrote: > > OK, so I've had a couple of +1's for applying the patch, and 2.20 has been > > released, so anyone object if I do it now? > > I'd say go for it. > > When one of us gets a chance, we can implement the child_malloc path in > trivial. That should remove most of the current complaints about SMS. so, you want to add apr_sms_child_malloc etc. which makes SMS a non-trivial API, which is one solution to the problem, and the other solution is to write a better sms than apr_sms_trivial.
one solution makes the SMS api quite complex. the other keeps it simple. i know that there have been message flying back/forth. i don't understand them. please do me a favour: could you write up a clear explanation of exactly what the purpose of apr_sms_child_malloc is? because it's very unclear [and i helped _design_ SMS, remember?] and if it's unclear, i really don't think it's a good idea to put it in, especially if there are other solutions. basically, apr_sms_child_malloc is giving me bad vibes - warning alarm bells are ringing: that's the best way i can put it. luke
