apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From <...@covalent.net>
Subject Re: Observations on fragmentation in SMS pools
Date Mon, 09 Jul 2001 23:50:31 GMT

> cool, huh?  [and it's only 1024 LOC yes i know it's not
> portable like APR i was v.impressed that someone actually
> looked at it when i first mentioned it here, btw ]
> so *grin*.
> can you guarantee thread-safety on apr_hash_t using
> apr_hash_first()/next()/this()?
> can you guarantee complete traversal with multiple
> simultaneous adders, deleters, readers and writers?
> and does anyone want a challenge of porting tdb to apr?
> *grin*

Challenge, did somebody say challenge?  I'm always up for a challenge.

> > BTW: Why are tables in APR at all?  The only thing I see used
> > is headers in apr-util hooks code, and in the xml, but that of
> > course can be fixed.  Step 1, remove tables from APR, Step 2,
> > remove tables from Apache.
> agh!  tables are kinda... entrenched into xvl.  okay, maybe
> not: only 10 instances of apr_table_make.  10 of apr_table_do
> [which is why i was advocating it: i really like it :)]

Tables are in APR, because were originally moved from Apache to APR before
APR-util existed.  They should really move to apr-util.  They should never
be removed from Apache.  Tables are useful because they garuantee a
general order to the data, namely, the order you insert information into
the table.  Hashes have a different use case.


Ryan Bloom                        	rbb@apache.org
Covalent Technologies			rbb@covalent.net

View raw message