Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The things aren't as bad as I thought there are. Here is an update on this issue. The key difference to my previous post is: only objects that have DESTROY method may need to be dealt with.
+1, my only comment (for now) on your list is:
- mpxs_APR__Bucket_setaside
The semantics for apr_bucket_setaside don't require the perl wrapper to be modified, because when someone writes
$bucket->setaside($pool);
that means "this bucket may need to live as long as this pool does". If we change the semantics to "this pool needs to
live as long as this bucket does", IMO we've made a mistake.
If you agree, then I think mpxs_APR__Bucket_setaside can
be removed from the list.
I haven't analized the actual methods yet, other than checking that they return an object.
I agree that this is a tricky issue with this method. But if you don't tie the pool along with the setaside data, how is it going to be preserved if the pool will be gone? the setaside data will become corrupted, no?
-- __________________________________________________________________ Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
