Re: SvnCpp Subversion Client C++ API Released!

On Sun, 2002-08-25 at 20:06, Scott Lamb wrote:
> When C++ code calls C code...is using subpools important? I would say
> no, because the constructor/destructor thing will already make sure the
> "subpool" is destroyed appropriately.

That's only true if the lifetime of the pool (or object) is the same as
the lifetime of a block of code. If that's not true, then you're back
to remembering to do an explicit delete.

> I think it's more important to hide the pool stuff as much as possible
> - it's not the C++ way of doing things

I'll buy that, but there is still an efficiency concern if this decision
reaches fine-grained interfaces like strings. Putting each svn string
in its own APR pool means spending 8K per string, which is pretty bad if
the application uses a lot of them.

(I'm not really sold on APR pools in the first place, but it's a maybe a
tiny bit late to think about going back on that.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Aug 26 02:21:18 2002