it's probably better to have a new 'sub cleanup_sub_pool', otherwise how do we know that it's not the main pool that gets destroyed twice?
+ # should destroy the subpool too, so + # cleanup is called twice $p->destroy;
also should we test that a sub-pool is destroyed before the main pool?
how about this
--- t/response/TestAPR/pool.pm 5 Sep 2003 16:30:45 -0000 1.4 +++ t/response/TestAPR/pool.pm 5 Sep 2003 17:34:47 -0000 @@ -5,13 +5,20 @@
use Apache::Test;
+use Apache::RequestRec (); use APR::Pool (); +use APR::Table ();
use Apache::Const -compile => 'OK';
-sub cleanup {
- my $arg = shift;
- ok $arg == 33;
+sub parent_cleanup {
+ shift->notes->add(cleanup => 'parent');
+ 1;
+}
+
+sub child_cleanup {
+ shift->notes->set(cleanup => 'child');
+ 1;
} sub handler {
@@ -31,12 +38,15 @@
# my $num_bytes = $p->num_bytes;
# ok $num_bytes;- $p->cleanup_register(\&cleanup, 33); - $subp->cleanup_register(\&cleanup, 33); + $p->cleanup_register(\&parent_cleanup, $r); + $subp->cleanup_register(\&child_cleanup, $r);
- # should destroy the subpool too, so
- # cleanup is called twice
+ # should destroy the subpool too
$p->destroy;
+
+ my @notes = $r->notes->get('cleanup');
+ ok $notes[0] eq 'child';
+ ok $notes[1] eq 'parent';Apache::OK; }
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
