Henry Jen wrote:
Please let me know if you have any comments. :-)
+/**
+ * Setup all of the internal structures required to use thread pools
+ */
+APR_DECLARE(apr_status_t) apr_thread_pool_init(void);
+
+/**
+ * Tear down all of the internal structures required to use pools
+ */
+APR_DECLARE(void) apr_thread_pool_terminate(void);
Double initialization, double teardown issues? Consider that my libfoo.so
may want to create a threadpool, I'm not privy to whether or not the application
that embedded libfoo.so actualy intialized the threadpool API itself.
Is this needed? If not can we please chuck it? I understand the desire to
anticipate the unanticipated, but this certainly will be a bigger problem if
it were used, than if we discover it's needed somehow.
+APR_DECLARE(apr_thread_pool_t*) apr_thread_pool_create(apr_pool_t *pool,
+ apr_size_t init_threads,
+ apr_size_t max_threads,
+ apr_status_t *err);
EWWWW!
Do you mean
APR_DECLARE(apr_status_t) apr_thread_pool_create(apr_thread_pool_t **threadpool,
apr_pool_t *pool,
apr_size_t init_threads,
apr_size_t max_threads);
Please follow style guidelines, and precident, in your proposals :)
+/**
+ * Get current number of tasks waiting in the queue
+ * @param me The thread pool
+ * @return Number of tasks in the queue
+ */
+APR_DECLARE(int) apr_thread_pool_tasks_cnt_get(apr_thread_pool_t *me);
Worst of all worlds. It's not a property (e.g. get/set), it's a verb (please
*count* for me your entities), so apr_thread_pool_tasks_count( ) seems right.
+/**
+ * Get current number of idling thread
+ * @param me The thread pool
+ * @return Number of idling threads
+ */
+APR_DECLARE(int) apr_thread_pool_unused_cnt_get(apr_thread_pool_t *me);
ditto... _count() not cnt_get()
+/**
+ * Stop all unused threads. Ignore the maximum number of idling threads.
+ * @param me The thread pool
+ * @return The total number of threads stopped.
+ */
+APR_DECLARE(int) apr_thread_pool_stop_unused_threads(apr_thread_pool_t *me);
What's the difference between setting apr_thread_pool_unused_max_set() to 0,
and this function? Can we drop it?
It seems this function would stop idling threads at this point in time, while
it makes much more design sense to set unused_max to 0, ensuring the unused
threads continue to be pruned as they finish their unit of work.
Thoughts?
Bill
