On Saturday 08 September 2001 11:29, Brian Pane wrote:
> Ryan Bloom wrote:
> >On Friday 07 September 2001 14:23, Brian Pane wrote:
> >>The attached patches change the apr_table_t implementation from
> >>a linear list to a hash table (not an apr_hash_t, though!). With
> >>this change, I'm seeing a ~3% improvement in throughput when
> >>delivering a 0-byte file over the loopback on Linux. (I used this
> >>0-byte test case to measure the inherent overhead in the httpd, without
> >>transmission time clouding the results.)
> >
> >I dislike this. Why are we putting a second hash table into APR? If we
> > want to use a hash, then ues an apr_hash_t. If apr_hash_t doesn't
> > support something that we MUST have to do this, then fix apr_hash_t.
> > Having two different hash alorithms in APR, one of them hidden under a
> > tables API, seems kind of hackish to me.
>
> Are you arguing in favor of using apr_hash_t in the implementation of
> apr_table_t,
> or using apr_hash_t in place of apr_table_t in the request_rec? I'm
> comfortable
> with the former, but not the latter.
The latter. Having two API's to the same functions should only be done
as a stop-gap. Also, a LOT of modules using the apr_table_elem macro
to get the elements from a table. Turning that into an API would break a
lot of people.
Ryan
______________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
Covalent Technologies rbb@covalent.net
--------------------------------------------------------------
|