Karl Fogel wrote:
>Branko Čibej <brane@xbc.nu> writes:
>
>
>>When somebody implements it? :-)
>>The discussion blocked some time ago when it seemed that adding a
>>context param would be expensive.
>>
>>
>
>"expensive" only in the "lots of work" sense, not performance.
>
Yes, of course.
>>Later on I suggested storing the
>>context in the top-level pool (which would be different for each
>>client thread), but there haven't been any replies yet. Serves me
>>right for pushing comments into the issue tracker instead of posting
>>them here. But maybe I should just implement that...
>>
>>
>
>Yucko :-). This is just global variables by another name; let's at
>least make it an explicit parameter. But no, I'm not volunteering
>right now, either.
>
Not exactly. It's a per-thread global variable (assuming different
threads use separate global pools, which they'd be insane not to), and
in this case I believe it makes sense. There aren't all that many
functions that use configuration data, and passing an extra parameter to
all functions just for those lucky few seems like overkill. OTOH, all
the relevant functions _do_ take a pool parameter. So why not hang this
data off of the top-level pool?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Nov 5 21:16:45 2002