On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 05:40:45PM +0300, Ivan Zhakov wrote: > On 24 September 2015 at 17:34, Bert Huijben <b...@qqmail.nl> wrote: > >> > >> +/* Parse a given URL_STR, fill in all supplied fields of URI > >> + * structure. > >> + * > >> + * This function is a compatibility wrapper around apr_uri_parse(). > >> + * Different apr-util versions set apr_uri_t.path to either NULL or "" > >> + * for root paths, and serf expects to see "/". This function always > >> + * sets URI.path to "/" for these paths. */ > >> +svn_error_t * > >> +svn_ra_serf__uri_parse(apr_uri_t *uri, > >> + const char *url_str, > >> + apr_pool_t *pool); > > > > I think the pool should be named result_pool here. > >
+1 > I think we use POOL name if function accepts just one pool, and > SCRATCH_POOL/RESULT_POOL in other case. Is not it? > > I would not mind to rename POOL to RESULT_POOL in this particular > case, but I'm not sure that we should use RESULT_POOL in all other > cases if function accepts one pool. We certainly have functions that take only a scratch_pool. The idea is to identify the purpose of the pool, and not only in the case where there are 2 pools.
