httpd-apreq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Issac Goldstand <mar...@beamartyr.net>
Subject Re: naming conventions & data structures (was Re: proposed 2.0 features/layout)
Date Wed, 20 Feb 2002 22:56:16 GMT
Not sure if this is already part of the API, but with the new proposed 
method of registering POST handlers, is there some function that will 
tell Apache handlers what kind of content was sent to it?  I can't say 
that it would always be necessary - or even ever, perhaps - but it would 
leave a door open that could possibly become important... Once people 
can develop their own handlers for parsing the POSTs, you can never tell 
what sort of cool applications they may develop, but it's possible that 
the POST method might be a variable in some complex application...

Just my two cents...

  Issac


Joe Schaefer wrote:

>Stas Bekman <stas@stason.org> writes:
>
>>>The current header files are inconsistent and have
>>>too much cruft.  Although I prefer using a common
>>>naming convention for both macros and functions within
>>>header files, I could live with adopting a different
>>>scheme for macros.  But the current .h files are not
>>>consistent in this regard, and IMO that needs to change.
>>>
>>
>>+ for common naming convention.
>>
>
>OK- some clarification on this: macros that have function-call
>semantics (i.e. the args appear only once in the definition)
>should be lower-case;  macros that may not be safe, like say
>
>  #define apreq_MAX(a,b) ( (a) < (b) ? (b) : (a) )
>
>MUST have (some) upper-case letters.
>
>Another issue I think we should address is what sort of
>data structures we'll use to hold the param's, cookie's,
>and upload's.  In (the still-pending-Jim's release of) 1.0,
>we use apache arrays and tables, and a simple home-grown
>linked list for uploads.
>
>For 2.0, I'm leaning *against* using ap_hash because it doesn't
>seem to support multivalued keys as well as apache 1.x tables 
>do (tables are implemented as a special kind of apache array;
>the hash-like iterface for an apache table is just a ruse.)
>
>IOW, if we decide on using a real hash, it probably should be 
>list-valued, and I think that means we'll need to roll-our-own
>version of ap_hash.  IMO it will be simpler to just use a linked 
>list (a'la ap_ring.h) as the underlying structure for everything, 
>and just superimpose a hash-like interface on top of it.
>
>Thoughts?
>




Mime
View raw message