On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 20 Dec 2002, Brian Pane wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2002-12-20 at 08:57, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > I am actually pretty sure that allocating brigades out of the
> > > bucket_allocator is a VERY big mistake. In fact, I am close to asking
> > > that c
On 20 Dec 2002, Brian Pane wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-12-20 at 12:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > As for this not working when the filter and handler are in different
> > threads, of course it will. As long as the buckets are copied into a
> > brigade that was allocated out of a pool that will sti
On Fri, 2002-12-20 at 12:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> As for this not working when the filter and handler are in different
> threads, of course it will. As long as the buckets are copied into a
> brigade that was allocated out of a pool that will still be alive when the
> filter is called, this
On 20 Dec 2002, Brian Pane wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-12-20 at 11:24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > U, I don't believe that it is possible for a brigade to outlive the
> > transaction that created it, especially not when you look at how brigades
> > are used in the web server.
>
> Sure it can. A
On Fri, 2002-12-20 at 11:24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> U, I don't believe that it is possible for a brigade to outlive the
> transaction that created it, especially not when you look at how brigades
> are used in the web server.
Sure it can. An output brigade created in a subrequest, for
ex
> and you will have a hell of a time tracking it down. I can gaurantee that
> this change caused a memory leak. I know it did because Greg Stein and I
> argued over leaving a comment in the code that said essentially "This
> would be a memory leak if the brigade were allocated out of a pool, but
On 20 Dec 2002, Brian Pane wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-12-20 at 08:57, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I am actually pretty sure that allocating brigades out of the
> > bucket_allocator is a VERY big mistake. In fact, I am close to asking
> > that change to be backed out because it is too dangerous.
> >
>
On Fri, 2002-12-20 at 07:32, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> If a pool is passed to apr_brigade_create, the brigade is allocated out of the
> pool. If the pool is NULL, the brigade is allocated out of the bucket
> allocator.
> We don't want a pool pointer hanging around in a brigade allocated out of the
>
On Fri, 2002-12-20 at 08:57, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am actually pretty sure that allocating brigades out of the
> bucket_allocator is a VERY big mistake. In fact, I am close to asking
> that change to be backed out because it is too dangerous.
>
> When we first designed buckets and bucket b
I am actually pretty sure that allocating brigades out of the
bucket_allocator is a VERY big mistake. In fact, I am close to asking
that change to be backed out because it is too dangerous.
When we first designed buckets and bucket brigades, we made one VERY clear
distinction. Bucket_brigades
If a pool is passed to apr_brigade_create, the brigade is allocated out of the
pool. If the pool is NULL, the brigade is allocated out of the bucket allocator.
We don't want a pool pointer hanging around in a brigade allocated out of the
bucket allocator. That's just asking for trouble. This patch
Sorry ... I forgot one thing:
- in apr_queue.h a line containing '#include "apu.h"' should be added.
Sorry.
Regards,
Dezo
Hi.
> Well, it's hard to help you if you don't tell us which symbols are
> unresolved. But my first guess is that you're linking with just
> libaprutil -- you need libapr, too. APR-util depends on APR.
10x ... you already help me.
Attached you can find the patch for:
- aprutil.dsp
- libaprutil.ds
Damir Dezeljin wrote:
>Hi.
>
>Can someone pleas explain me how to add apr_queue to the library on
>Windows?
>
>I'm using VS.NET . I open 'aprutil.dsw' in apr-util dir. Choose convert
>all project files to VS 7 format (BTW: Is of any use if I send those 'new'
>project files to the list - e.g. to ad
David Reid wrote:
>Yeah nice thought but it's been vetoed by quite a few folks. You do read the
>same list I do don't you? :)
>
Sorry? I haven't seen a single veto. All I've seen is some (admittedly
heated) discussion, and no reply yet from Dirk-Willem (who seems to
oppose this addition the most)
15 matches
Mail list logo