apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Graham Leggett <minf...@sharp.fm>
Subject Re: APR hash vs httpd implementation
Date Tue, 06 Dec 2011 12:29:27 GMT
On 05 Dec 2011, at 8:52 PM, sridhar basam wrote:

> Anyone know why the mod_cache code has an almost identical implementation of the apr_hash*
functions? Seems like the only difference is that the mod_cache implementation isn't using
APR pools and has a fixed size  table. Are there any advantages using one over the other?

svn blame shows this:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
r94932 | stoddard | 2002-05-04 21:54:39 +0200 (Sat, 04 May 2002) | 5 lines

Introduce a dedicated cache hash adt that does not rely on pools. This
cures a storage leak when garbage collecting expired entries out of the
hash table. cache_hash is just apr_hash with some of the function removed
and reimplemented to use malloc/free in place of apr_pool calls.

Turns out to be dead code at this point that used to be used by the now-removed mod_mem_cache.

Regards,
Graham
--


Mime
View raw message