On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 9:18 AM, Yann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Erik Huelsmann wrote: >> >> On 6/6/08, Ryan Bloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> I don't think that there is any reason to not have a sizeof() >>> function, other than any code that does "play" with the pointers will >>> be non-portable code. The reason that I originally went with opaque >>> data structures (I did it before giving the code to the ASF), was that >>> most of the structures are defined totally differently on each >>> platform. By making the structures opaque, it became much harder for >>> a developer to write code with APR that worked on some APR platforms, >>> but not others. If you play with the pointers, your code is very >>> likely to work only on the platforms that you code on. >>> >>> But, I would like to hear from some of the active developers about this >>> as well. >> >> Well, as soon as you provide its size, it's not completely opaque >> anymore, now is it :-) >> > > Yes of course, but as soon you provide an accessor it isn't neither ... > >> I think the entire issue is centered around the fact that Yann doesn't >> really want to play by the pool-rules... >> > > I would love to play with the APR pools if they could become subpools of > others after their creation. > > That is, a pool being the whole object (destroyed with its pool), and > objects living or dying with their changing owners. > > Why couldn't that be compatible with the pool rules ?
If this is what you really want/need, then I would suggest focusing on a patch that implements this functionality. Ryan -- Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
