Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 82254 invoked by uid 500); 16 Apr 2003 17:28:44 -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 82239 invoked from network); 16 Apr 2003 17:28:43 -0000 Message-ID: <3E9D92CA.90505@us.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 13:28:42 -0400 From: Allan Edwards User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@apr.apache.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] some progress with apr_socket_data_get()/apr_socket_data_set() References: <3E9C9847.2070602@attglobal.net> <2147483647.1050447762@[10.0.1.20]> <3E9D490F.3070700@attglobal.net> <2147483647.1050481397@[10.0.1.20]> In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1050481397@[10.0.1.20]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > Store that key in the apr_socket_data? Another cheesy idea may be to > use a linked list with the key in the structure. I'm just really > thinking that for the general case, a key/value backing (like a hash) is > overkill. I'm just not clear this is going to be more than 2 or 3 > elements at most... Jeff's proposal is no more heavyweight than what we had before and I think we definitely should support more than 1 element so I'm +1 for the patch (of course I'm not against any optimizations should anyone be inclined to code them :) Allan