On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 03:09:09AM +0000, Nick Kew wrote:
> > Rationale: if an module gets a resource that proves to be bad (e.g.
> > a connection that's gone away), it shouldn't be returned to the
> > pool to be given out again. We should invalidate it.
> >
> > I'm proposing the following patch, though I'm not sure whether
> > or not we should free_container in the event of destroy_resource
> > returning an error(?)
>
> Did this ever get committed? I don't see it in HEAD, so it seems like
> it may have been forgotten.
Nope, it got ignored[1], like everything else I've tried to contribute
to APR. OK that's not much, but then getting consistently ignored isn't
really an encouragement to share my work.
OK, I know exactly why that happens: we all have a limited supply of
round tuits, and a third-party patch is going to be in contention
with higher-priority demands on your time. Which leads me to wonder
if there could be a better way to submit proposed patches?
> FWIW, I'm +1 on the concept, and I'd be glad to test/commit.
Excellent! Thank you.
> We'll
> also want to add some test code while we're at it.
You mean to reslist in particular, or apr_util in general?
If the former, would it help for me to revisit it?
[1] Except for Paul Querna - who wants if for exactly the same
reasons I do but has no more privilege than I to commit.
--
Nick Kew
