You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The current approach assumes a handle to a pool or a provider will be passed as context. Because of the lack of support for params in the name like %p, %s, or {} it should be determined using a new type of leaf or node.
The implementation should be split into 2 parts, first is the main CTL tree:
shouldn't the CTL string be "umf.pool.disjoint.by_handle.%p.MaxPoolableSize" ?
"by_handle" explicitly shows that the next field would be a ptr
Also, "disjoint" should go before the handle, as logically the the handle is an instance of the Disjoint Pool.
CTL - setting values by handle
Rationale
This issue will be discussed and summarized in the implementation for the by_handle part of the CTL.
This issue is a part of: #1036
Description
The CTL for a handle is the way to set values for a specific pool or provider.
API Changes
The current API should be unchanged.
Examples of use
Implementation details
The current approach assumes a handle to a pool or a provider will be passed as context. Because of the lack of support for params in the name like
%p
,%s
, or{}
it should be determined using a new type of leaf or node.The implementation should be split into 2 parts, first is the main CTL tree:
After encountering SUB_TREE there should be located a proper CTL tree, appropriate for the mentioned type:
Meta
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: