Jeff Trawick wrote: > Ian Holsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >>Jeff Trawick wrote: >> >>>questions for *dbm gurus... is a switch from 1.3's ndbm usage to >>>apr-util's built-in sdbm going to hurt anybody (file compatibility)? >>> >> >>It will. >>but the easiest way to handle this is to support ndbm in apr-util. >>I've got a patch from someone to do this.. I've just been lazy >>I'll go and implement that now. >>(so you'll have the best of both worlds) > > > Cool... I think I should change my mod_rewrite patch to do something > like the following: > > #if APU_HAVE_NDBM > #define DBM_MAP_TYPE "NDBM" > #else > #define DBM_MAP_TYPE "SDBM" > #endif
hmm.. you should probably change this to #if APU_HAVE_NDBM #define DBM_MAP_TYPE "NDBM" #else #define DBM_MAP_TYPE "default" #endif BTW ndbm support is in.. but it would be better if it got more testing > > Then, we are compatible with existing (1.3) map files where possible > and we allow everyone else to use the support too. >
