Daniel Rall writes:
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, Peter Lundblad wrote:
>
> The scratch pool isn't useful in the svn_client_proplist2() function
> (shown in Bhuvan's change). However, the parameter is a memory usage
> optimization when the remote_proplist() function calls itself
> recursively.
>
Yeah, I noticed. I wasn't proposing to remove the extra argument (sorry
if that was unclear), but just to pass in the main pool for the scratchpool
as well. The recursion part, where the loop is, creates its own subpool
anyway. I thinnk that would have been easier to understand because
it is more like our conventional pool usage.
> Another option would be to allocate and destroy the scratch pool
> inside of remote_proplist() when one is not provided by the caller.
> However, this requires that we track whether a pool was provided,
> which has a slightly higher complexity cost than Bhuvan's approach,
> since it complicates the implementation without simplifying the
> interface.
>
We don't need a scratch pool unless we recurse, do we?
Thanks,
//Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Jan 16 09:07:22 2007