Return-Path: 
 <dev-return-24476-apmail-apr-dev-archive=apr.apache.org@apr.apache.org>
X-Original-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
	by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8FE7475BA
	for <apmail-apr-dev-archive@www.apache.org>;
 Mon,  5 Dec 2011 18:53:14 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 66913 invoked by uid 500); 5 Dec 2011 18:53:14 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org
Received: (qmail 66854 invoked by uid 500); 5 Dec 2011 18:53:13 -0000
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:dev@apr.apache.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-help@apr.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@apr.apache.org>
List-Id: <dev.apr.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org
Received: (qmail 66846 invoked by uid 99); 5 Dec 2011 18:53:13 -0000
Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 05 Dec 2011 18:53:13 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0
	tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of sridhar.basam@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.212.50 as permitted sender)
Received: from [209.85.212.50] (HELO mail-vw0-f50.google.com) (209.85.212.50)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 05 Dec 2011 18:53:05 +0000
Received: by vbbey12 with SMTP id ey12so5300174vbb.37
        for <dev@apr.apache.org>; Mon, 05 Dec 2011 10:52:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:sender:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject
         :from:to:content-type;
        bh=3+NAMNxnC3x+iw/HOd+kum9il452ynB4z0i/DrrH85k=;
        b=vMyEFUCTPMgZ6a/lu0iKQBHBS9EzRe/DRCccOHwj2HEW3FIYfvh6CZUOKjrrOVzjIc
         gn5ZfXDArE6ZjxGsHEngtdmBtzwrH+gC2Bvwot2ft1u0eA+w5sJiJXN3mR8KEHh8L8Mc
         cTM+kL7xNcQaA2ztCSz8e+RXFBor4L+eTzEn4=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.94.227 with SMTP id df3mr6328515vdb.51.1323111164818; Mon,
 05 Dec 2011 10:52:44 -0800 (PST)
Sender: sridhar.basam@gmail.com
Received: by 10.220.8.201 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 10:52:44 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 13:52:44 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: muK-kzibsCWFHt_GC91nFFgbZy4
Message-ID: 
 <CAGnVnBkfEomjCMh5harBgdtU=Bh0n-doiUCNYYi4SjizPtbn_g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: APR hash vs httpd implementation
From: sridhar basam <sri@basam.org>
To: dev@apr.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf307d048efa33e104b35cd286
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

--20cf307d048efa33e104b35cd286
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

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?

thanks,
           Sridhar

--20cf307d048efa33e104b35cd286
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div><br></div><div>Anyone know why the mod_cache code has an almost identi=
cal implementation of the apr_hash* functions? Seems like the only differen=
ce is that the mod_cache implementation isn&#39;t using APR pools and has a=
 fixed size =A0table. Are there any advantages using one over the other?</d=
iv>
<div><br></div><div>thanks,</div><div>=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Sridhar</div>

--20cf307d048efa33e104b35cd286--