Hi, Why are apr_pool_alloc_init()/apr_pool_alloc_term() and apr_initialize()/apr_terminate() not symmetrically implemented? I'm referring to the fact that apr_initialize() creates a pool (the 'global' pool) and apr_pool_alloc_term() destroys this pool.
Any reason why apr_pool_alloc_init() [me would like apr_pool_initialize() better, but then again it is still early in the morning for me ;)] shouldn't create the 'global' pool? apr_initialize() would then have to call apr_pool_alloc_init() first, then create a pool (which would become a subpool of the global pool), and use that to pass to apr_get_oslevel() and apr_signal_init(). apr_terminate() could just do what it does now, only not pass a pool to apr_pool_alloc_term() [/me mumbles something about apr_pool_terminate()]. Since there is no apparent API change to the outside world (noone was supposed to call apr_pool_alloc_init()/apr_pool_alloc_term() directly!), I would like to change apr_initialize()/apr_terminate(). Just scream with objections if you don't want this. I'll post a patch that works against the pools 'rewrite' code. Sander
