I agree with Sander, this should be relatively easy to implement using parent relationships. And, I didn't intend sarcasm. I really meant that if you have a feature that APR is missing, it is better to implement it inside APR, rather than implement a wrapper around the existing concept.
Ryan On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 12:16 PM, Sander Striker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Yann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Christopher Key wrote: > > [...] >> Ryan Bloom wrote: >>> If this is what you really want/need, then I would suggest focusing on >>> a patch that implements this functionality. >>> >>> Ryan >>> >> >> OK, I can try to do that although I feel some sarcasm in your suggestion, >> don't you think it is possible ? > > I'm not sure if I really understand what you need. It sounds like you'd want > to > have something like > > /** > * Detach @a p from it's parent, making it an orphan. Destruction or cleanup > of > * the original parent pool will not destruct @a p. > * > * @warning Use this function wisely, you're changing original lifetimes. > */ > apr_status_t apr_pool_orphan(apr_pool_t *p); > > /** > * Attach @a p to @a parent, making it a child pool. Destruction or cleanup > of > * @a parent will also destroy @a p. > * > * @warning Use this function wisely, you're changing original lifetimes. > */ > apr_status_t apr_pool_adopt(apr_pool_t *p, apr_pool_t *parent); > > If that's what you want it's not particularly hard to do. > >> Moreover, my solution looks quite simple and I'm afraid it has already been >> discussed in this list, but I give a try ... >> >> If I had to do a patch, I would try to use the >> apr_pool_cleanup_register()ing / _kill()ing mechanism to bind the pools each >> others. > > I would just manipulate the child/parent relationships. > >> Including the subpools that would just be pools registered in the cleanups >> list of their parent/owner. >> >> Do you see another constraint, for a pool to be lately attached to another >> parent/owner, than the two pools have to use the same allocator and the >> to-attach pool *not* to be an ancestor of the attached owner/parent pool >> (that is, not having its own cleanup registered in the owner) ? >> >> I'm surely missing something, and I surely need some advices, >> regards, >> Yann. > > Cook up a patch and we'll give it a look :) > > Cheers, > > Sander > -- Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
