Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Fri, Jun 28, 2002 at 12:11:09PM -0700, Brian Pane wrote:
I want to break something: binary compatibility for the pool API.
This has been on my list for a long time, but I haven't yet had time to implement it.
What I'm thinking of is the following:
* Preface the apr_pool_t structure with a set of function
pointers for the pool's "methods": alloc, free, destroy,
create subpool, etc.
Sounds like SMS. We could never overcome speed limitations and we
always seemed to place blame on the function pointers as the reason
why the SMS performance wasn't as good as pools.
I think SMS's use of a wrapper function to do the indirect method call was the main problem, which is why we'd have to use a macro instead if we reintroduced a function pointer model.
I'd want to see performance metrics saying that we aren't going to
see a massive performance decrease with this. -- justin
Definitely.
--Brian
