> cool, huh? [and it's only 1024 LOC yes i know it's not > portable like APR i was v.impressed that someone actually > looked at it when i first mentioned it here, btw ] > > so *grin*. > > can you guarantee thread-safety on apr_hash_t using > apr_hash_first()/next()/this()? > > can you guarantee complete traversal with multiple > simultaneous adders, deleters, readers and writers? > > and does anyone want a challenge of porting tdb to apr? > *grin*
Challenge, did somebody say challenge? I'm always up for a challenge. :-) > > BTW: Why are tables in APR at all? The only thing I see used > > is headers in apr-util hooks code, and in the xml, but that of > > course can be fixed. Step 1, remove tables from APR, Step 2, > > remove tables from Apache. > > agh! tables are kinda... entrenched into xvl. okay, maybe > not: only 10 instances of apr_table_make. 10 of apr_table_do > [which is why i was advocating it: i really like it :)] Tables are in APR, because were originally moved from Apache to APR before APR-util existed. They should really move to apr-util. They should never be removed from Apache. Tables are useful because they garuantee a general order to the data, namely, the order you insert information into the table. Hashes have a different use case. Ryan _____________________________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
