Paul Querna wrote: > Branko Čibej wrote: >> >> Oh, certainly. Except that sometimes the "just" is a pretty big one. I >> remember once ... well, to make a long story short, control over pool >> lifetime wasn't, and we ended up jumping through several Klein bottles >> to get there. > > I think a proposal to make them optional would be very interesting, I > know some people (Garrett Rooney?) had some ideas on this.
I've seen a proposal to replace pool_clear/_destroy to call free() instead of returning the pool to the allocator. And we've tried implementing apr_sms for pluggable memory in the past, see the svn history. The performance was unacceptable. Bill
