Chad Fox wrote: > > I'd rather play 'whack-a-mole' tearing down user X's resources and tell > him tough luck, rather than bringing down the entire system. The abort > functions could work for that, but what if you just want to tell user X he > can't have more resources and let him continue?
You don't, you want to dump X on it's ass. which is why the abort functions could implement a thread-specific semi-safe teardown of that threads resources. But, you don't know that X isn't the user of 32kb, while user Y is busy chewing away at some 1.2gb of allocation. So that's not even particularly effective either. search http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/apr-dev/ and even our predecessor http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/ for every argument you are about to raise and every response to such arguments. Outside of the abort function, this is not changing. Perhaps at some point a recovery callback might be added to permit a particularly savvy application to immediately release some unnecessary resources (e.g. caches) and then retry the allocation and return on success. But return nomem by overallocation is a crash-bug and you aren't about to convince this experienced group of developers otherwise :) Bill
