On Sunday 23 September 2001 11:28 am, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2001, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > > You can't do this. The reason for the immortal bucket, was that we
> > > are closing the pipe or socket bucket. What this change does, is it
> > > closes the pipe, but leaves the bucket in the brigade. This will
> > > cause problems later. You can't just remove the bucket, because you
> > > only have access to the one bucket, and if you remove this bucket,
> > > then you also need to update the pointer from the previous bucket,
> > > which you can't do.
> >
> > This adds all of the 0-length buckets that make some of the higher-level
> > code more complicated. Wouldn't calling apr_bucket_delete(a) work here?
> > The bucket contains a link to which brigade it is in - so it should be
> > able to update the right pointers, no?
>
> No. You can fix b->prev->next and b->next->prev, but you can't fix the
> caller's copy of b. A bucket can never be allowed to delete itself for
> that very reason. When the pipe and socket buckets become empty, the very
> most efficient way to handle it is to just remove the pipe and socket
> bucket completely; but with the above constraint, the only way to do that
> is to replace the pipe/socket bucket with the lightest-weight bucket
> possible. That's an immortal bucket of zero length.
Exactly!
Ryan
______________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------
