On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 10:18 AM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Ruediger Pluem <rpl...@apache.org> wrote:
>> I don't think that a remark is strong enough here. I would like to
>> see this parameter either added to a new apr_reslist_create_ex or if
>> we want to stick with apr_reslist_fifo_set it should return an error
>> if elements are already in the reslist.
> r1828492, I kept it as a helper rather than _create_ex() because:
> - it's already how settings seem to be added there (timeout, ...)
> - _create() has a substantial number of args already :/
> - _create_ex() are definitive extensions or may end up in endless
> discussions for the next function name when/should an _ex_ex() is/be
> needed :)

Actually it's not that easy.
While writing the unit test for apr_reslist_fifo_set(), I realized
that if min > 0 is configured the reslist is immediately filled in
upon creation, so there is no way to call apr_reslist_fifo_set()

This brings us to either apr_reslist_create_ex() as you suggested, or
disable the non-empty check in apr_reslist_fifo_set() as the original
commit (and rely on the user to read docs...).
Setting fifo just after create() with min > 0 is not an issue per se,
it'll really matter at acquire time anyway...
So I tend to prefer the documentation only over the _ex() (potential
_ex++() later...), but I could live the the latter too :)


Reply via email to