From dev-return-3021-apmail-apr-dev-archive=apr.apache.org@apr.apache.org Thu Jul 05 15:24:00 2001 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 56525 invoked by uid 500); 5 Jul 2001 15:23:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 56406 invoked from network); 5 Jul 2001 15:23:57 -0000 X-Authentication-Warning: cobra.cs.Virginia.EDU: jcw5q owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 11:23:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Cliff Woolley X-X-Sender: To: APR Development List Subject: Re: cvs commit: apr-util/buckets apr_buckets_file.c In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Thu, 5 Jul 2001 rbb@covalent.net wrote: > Perhaps just having a different offset, like -1 to specify that you should > always use the OS's file offset. Hmm... that *only* works if you can guarantee that no other code (eg, some filter) is going muck with the brigade. IMO you're much better off keeping track of the offset than counting on reading from the file sequentially without backtracking and without skipping any. Buckets should work regardless of which buckets come before or after them in the brigade. > I agree whole-heartedly that we need to care about performance. However, > the need to be performance aware can NEVER interfere with making the code > work correctly. Exactly. --Cliff -------------------------------------------------------------- Cliff Woolley cliffwoolley@yahoo.com Charlottesville, VA