Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 11:00:10 +0100
From: Martin Kraemer <Martin.Kraemer@Fujitsu-Siemens.com>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: What to do about tables?
Message-ID: <20011107110010.E70423@deejai2.mch.fsc.net>
References: <3BE5C89B.2080907@pacbell.net> <20011104190517.R13242@lyra.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <20011104190517.R13242@lyra.org>;
 from gstein@lyra.org on Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 07:05:17PM -0800

> On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 03:00:43PM -0800, Brian Pane wrote:
> >...
> > 2. Change the performance-sensitive fields in the httpd's request_rec
> >    from apr_table_t (like r->headers_in) to some different data type
> >    (e.g., "ap_http_headers_t") that supports O(log(n)) or O(1) get/set
> >    operations
On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 07:05:17PM -0800, Greg Stein wrote:
> I think this custom type would be a wrapper around an apr_hash_t.

Isn't there the problem that some headers are order-sensitive?
Say, if there are several cookies, or several authentication protocol
alternatives (Basic/Digest/Negotiate), then order might matter.

OTOH, each header class per se could be hashed, and multiple occurrences
would be iterated for the located hash node.

  Martin
-- 
<Martin.Kraemer@Fujitsu-Siemens.com>         |     Fujitsu Siemens
Fon: +49-89-636-46021, FAX: +49-89-636-47655 | 81730  Munich,  Germany