From dev-return-4753-apmail-apr-dev-archive=apr.apache.org@apr.apache.org Mon Nov 05 00:20:10 2001 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 38557 invoked by uid 500); 5 Nov 2001 00:20:10 -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 38546 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2001 00:20:09 -0000 Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 19:19:53 -0500 (EST) From: Cliff Woolley X-X-Sender: To: Subject: Re: What to do about tables? In-Reply-To: <3BE5C89B.2080907@pacbell.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Sun, 4 Nov 2001, Brian Pane wrote: > 3. Keep using apr_table_t for the fields in request_rec, and redesign > the internals of apr_table_t to support O(log(n)) access > Pros: > * Performance improvement for the httpd > * Almost no impact on code that uses APR > Cons: > * Changes required to code that uses apr_table_elts() (on the order > of half a dozen calls in Apache 2.0, and occasional usage in the > handful of large 3rd-party modules that I've checked) I've always personally been of the opinion that this was the way to go... --Cliff -------------------------------------------------------------- Cliff Woolley cliffwoolley@yahoo.com Charlottesville, VA