From: "Greg Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 2:37 AM
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 10:38:44PM -0700, Brian Pane wrote:
> > Greg Stein wrote:
> >...
> > >Yes there is. apr_pool_userdata_set(..., r->pool)
> >...
> > Using the "userdata" functions on r->pool as a replacement for a
> > hash-based r->notes would be a mistake. The interface to the userdata
> > in a pool is limited to "get" and "set" methods. The API is missing
> > essential operations like "iterate over the set of elements in the userdata"
> > and "merge the userdata for a subrequest pool into the parent's r->pool."
>
> I would posit those operations are not needed. The notes or userdata are for
> specific bits of information. It is not a simple collection that you can
> iterate over. In fact, since you can't know the values of each key, you
> cannot perform a useful iteration nor do a useful merge.
Precisely.
What negative consequences would that pose for subrequests?
