Torsten Foertsch wrote: > On Thursday 18 October 2007, Philippe M. Chiasson wrote: >>> The patch contains all my findings so far including the pnotes refcount >>> problem. Pnotes now lock the interpreter like pools do. >> Any chance you can break the patch into multiple patches, one for each >> feature/fix? Ideally with an accompanying entry in Changes ? It'll be >> simpler to merge these one at a time back to the trunk/ > > Is the test suite expected to succeed after each patch?
In general, yes, that's the idea.
I can think of a few
> minor patches like pnotes, cleanuphandler, logging the pid with modperl_trace
> plus one big chunk with the basic interpreter management. Otherwise it
> doesn't make sense for me.
The current stream of patches is piling up (my bad), but they are much
easier to digest now (your good).
>>> There is a new ${r|c}->pnotes_kill function that can be used to
>>> prematurely delete pnotes.
>> Not sure about kill, how aobut:
>>
>> ->pnotes_reset() ?
>> ->pnotes_destroy() ?
>
> It was named after apr_pool_cleanup_kill(). If you don't like it then what do
> you prefer _destroy or _reset? To me it's all the same.
In that case, yes, pnotes_kill() probably is a bit more consistent.
Of course, after thinking about it, the more Perl-ish thing to do would
be to make this work:
undef $r->pnotes
Right now, you get a very nice error if you try that:
"Can't modify non-lvalue subroutine call"
Oh, well ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philippe M. Chiasson GPG: F9BFE0C2480E7680 1AE53631CB32A107 88C3A5A5
http://gozer.ectoplasm.org/ m/gozer\@(apache|cpan|ectoplasm)\.org/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
