apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From r..@covalent.net
Subject Re: cvs commit: apr/tables apr_tables.c
Date Sat, 20 Jan 2001 23:39:26 GMT
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001, Greg Stein wrote:

> It wasn't clear from my checkin message :-) ... I just removed the "btable"
> option. Binary tables are not useful, given our hash table implementation.
> What features of a table are you looking for, which hash tables do not
> provide?

I knew exactly what you did, and I disagree with it.  People have been
talking about the binary table implementation for at least two years, and
as soon as we got it, you just removed it without asking.

As far as options for the btable that aren't in the hash, how about size
of the table.  A hash table starts at 15 entries, and doubles each time it
is expanded.  A table is created with a size specified by the person
writing the code, and it grows by one each time.

Another feature that remains useful, is to be able to iterate over the
array, and know that you are getting data out in the same order that it
was originally added.  That feature does not exist with hash tables.

I am still -0.5 for removing the binary table implementation, and I am
leaning towards -1.


Ryan Bloom                        	rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131

View raw message