From: Darren Garvey (lists.drrngrvy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-25 12:19:30
On 25/04/07, Simon Richter <Simon.Richter_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > This hadn't crossed my mind. Oops. Just to clarify, when you say:
> > '...there'd
> > be a way for allocations made while serving one request to use a
> > specific allocator instance', are you talking about providing such an
> > allocator for _users_ of the library, or are you talking just about
> > memory allocation internally?
> The user of the library would provide the allocator, and the library
> would "call back" into the user for memory allocation and deallocation.
> The allocator would be per-request ideally, so that when we are using an
> extension that allows handling of multiple simultaneous requests in the
> same process (or fold the gateway code into the HTTPd, as is done on
> some devices), we can keep the allocations made for each request separate.
I was planning on abstracting memory allocations to an allocator for the
FastCGI/SCGI parameters, as an internal template argument. I'm not sure if
what I have in mind would be flexible enough though... Perhaps when I've
started properly coding the current ideas I could drop you an email and see
how far off I am?
In the meantime, I'll try to keep it in mind.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk