apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Trawick <traw...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [PATCH] apr_hash_this_{key,klen,val}
Date Thu, 08 Apr 2010 15:38:54 GMT
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Hyrum K. Wright
<hyrum_wright@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Hyrum K. Wright
> <hyrum_wright@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 9, 2010, at 4:37 PM, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > On Mar 9, 2010, at 2:00 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 3/9/2010 11:48 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>> >>> On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Hyrum K. Wright
>> >>> <hyrum_wright@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>> >>>> In using the apr_hash datastructure in Subversion, we've found that
>> >>>> we
>> >>>> often only want the key or value from a hash.  Furthermore, casting
>> >>>> the various return parameters has proven cumbersome.  To solve
this
>> >>>> problem, we've introduced three helper functions to return the key,
>> >>>> key length, and value from a hash iterator.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> We've found these functions quite useful, so I'm including a patch
to
>> >>>> add them to APR proper.
>> >>>
>> >>> IMO these functions are a natural addition; any concerns from the
>> >>> crowd?
>> >>>
>> >>>> The patch is against trunk, but if possible,
>> >>>> I'd like to see these APIs backported to 1.4.x and 1.5.x.
>> >>>
>> >>> too late for 1.4.x
>> >>
>> >> But not 1.5 - sounds like a great idea.  Only change I'd suggest is
>> >> _key_len
>> >> or even _keylen rather than _klen for an exported public function.
>> >
>> > I'm fine with that.
>> >
>> > I don't think I've got the appropriate karma to commit to APR, so
>> > whoever commits this patch can make that change (or would it be worse the
>> > hassle for me to create a new patch?).
>> >
>> > I'm also planning a followup which const-ifies the apr_hash_index_t
>> > params to these functions, as well as apr_hash_this().  Thoughts?
>>
>> Ping.  It's been a while since anybody has looked at this.  Any plans to
>> commit the original (or modified original) patch?
>
> Unfortunately, this still hasn't gotten any response, so I've filed it in
> the issue tracker as issue 49065:
> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49065

finally committed

care to confirm (or fix) the applicability of your patch to the 1.5.x branch?

Mime
View raw message