Mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <>
Subject Re: Context types in APR.
Date Mon, 03 May 1999 09:23:30 GMT
Ryan Bloom wrote:
> Ben's position:
> We should forget about context types.  All the stuff we were going to put
> in the context type really belongs in the pool structure.  This basically
> means we are adding a thread pointer, state flags, and possibly other
> fields later to the current Apache pools.  His argument is that the
> context abstraction is unnecessary, and we are better off just adding the
> fields to the current pools.
> Ben also feels ALL apr types should allow users to hang their own data off
> of them.
> My position:
> Pools are complex in Apache, I think it is better to use the current pool
> structure, and add a new type, contexts, that include the pool pointer,
> the thread pointer, the state flags, and user defined data.
> I do not see a need to have each apr type allow the user to hang data off
> of them.

+1 on the Ryan-position.

I would like to see a clearer definition of a context, though. IMO, I
see a context as a replacement for global and per-thread variables.
Therefore, it seems there are only two contexts: global and per-thread.
Can anybody explain why another context would ever be created? (and
don't say to create another pool: a new pool should always be a sub-pool
of another, falling back to the "global" pool)


Greg Stein,

View raw message