> Ah, ok, I'm getting the picture now. Well, for my purposes, the child > pool creation doesn't have to be in apr_thread_create. There doesn't > have to be child pool creation at all. But, I do want the worker fn > to be able to create a child pool from the pool passed into > apr_thread_create. So, we need a way to pass in the data to the > worker fn.
No. I thought we were going to per-thread pools. And, this is why we were going this way. This removes all of the notions of cleanups from a parent trying to forcibly cleanup the thread. IMHO, there should be no relationship between the parent SMS and its threads' SMS. -- justin
