On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Greg Stein wrote:
1) it is hard to tell that p and h refer to the same bucket.
p-heap.foo is more obvious than h-foo.
Fine by me.
2) Nit: I'm getting tired of these single letters for the bucket stuff. a
as a variable for a bucket? e? Blarg. Using h and p fall
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Greg Stein wrote:
Euh... I don't think we want another ring.
A simpler idea is to have the apr_bucket_pool structure contain a pointer to
an apr_bucket_heap structure. At cleanup time, you do the following:
...
So what you get here is a single allocation of a heap
On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 03:03:08PM -0500, Cliff Woolley wrote:
...
Basically, instead of having the pool bucket contain a pointer to a heap
bucket and having to fool with manipulating reference counts and keeping
track of when to destroy the old apr_bucket_pool struct, the
apr_bucket_pool
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3) pool_bucket_cleanup() is completely bogus AFAICT. I've added this
comment to the code, which describes the problems pretty well:
4) The same problem applies to file buckets that have been split/copied
when APR_HAS_MMAP: when one of them
On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 09:54:25AM -0500, Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3) pool_bucket_cleanup() is completely bogus AFAICT. I've added this
comment to the code, which describes the problems pretty well:
4) The same problem applies to file buckets
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Greg Stein wrote:
Euh... I don't think we want another ring.
A simpler idea is to have the apr_bucket_pool structure contain a pointer to
an apr_bucket_heap structure. At cleanup time, you do the following:
Ahh, (he says as the little light over his head comes on). This
