> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Stein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 3:18 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: file/mmap buckets, subrequests, pools, 2.0.18
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 10:13:30AM -0700, Ian Holsman wrote:
> > couldn't we have it so that the 'sub-handlers' request pool
> is joined with/the same as the main request's pool,
> > (this is different to the 'connection' pool right?)
> >
> > so that sub-requests live for the life of the request...
> > It looks like that is what the function apr_pool_join does
> in 'debug' mode
>
> No... The whole point of having a subrequest pool is so that
> we can trash it
> when the subrequest is done. If a request ran 1000 subrequests (it can
> happen with a large directory processed by mod_autoindex),
> then you would
> end up with a HUGE waste of memory in the request pool.
>
> Passing a pool to setaside() should allow us to migrate a
> bucket from one
> pool/lifetime (the subrequest) to another pool/lifetime (the
> request or the
> connection depending on who does a setaside and where they
> want to put it).
>
ok thats sounds fair..
the only problem i can see is that most bucket types don't implement the setaside
function
is implementing the setaside (with a pool) going to fix the mod_include problem of not
having the buckets passed back?
> Cheers,
> -g
>
> --
> Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
>
