Ryan Bloom wrote:
On Monday 20 August 2001 11:46, Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2001, Sterling Hughes wrote:
yes.. thats the point of the patch #include <apr_dbm_sdbm.h> #include <apr_dbm_db.h>
apr_dbm_t b1= apr_dbm_open_sdbm(...); apr_dbm_t b2= apr_dbm_open_db(...);
should work. the 'test' program will have a update later which will allow it to choose DB types (-t DB|SDBM|GDBM)
Ahh, ok... I was thinking something more inline with:
#include <apr_dbm.h>
apr_dmb_t b1 = apr_dbm_open(APR_GDBM, ...);
But either way works.
Different parts of APR and apr-util use one method or the other, so it's hard to say which is more consistent. Some use Ian's method (eg buckets, sms), some use yours (eg locks). I think I like Ian's flavor (the apr_dbm_open_foo one) better in this context because it's probably more easily extensible by an outside module that might know about some flavor of dbm we don't know about. But that's just me. <shrug>
Well, I think we should choose one, and just follow that one model. I personally would rather use an argument to specify the type. We can't do that with buckets, because that would require function overloading. SMS should move to just a simple argument IMHO though.
the problem passing a option to the dbm open is twofold.
1. If I want to add another dbm (say NuSQL's genesis or some comerical package) I would then need to
modify apr-util and add the flag. this means a branch and will present a road block for me upgrading apr-util
2. I may have a dbm which needs extra parameters to open it. (say for exampe cache size, or maybe it requires
a fixed key length defined) I couldn't do this simply
Ryan
______________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------
