Greg Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 12:21:17PM -0400, 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)?
> >
> > is it going to be necessary to let the admin choose the file format
> > from among the formats supported by apr-util?
>
> That would be best. The admin could then select GDBM moving forwards (the
> best DBM of the bunch) [and assuming the admin can convert any pre-existing
> ndbm files to gdbm thru some tool]
wanna pick a RewriteMap syntax that does this? hopefully folks can
come up with something better than the following
RewriteMap dbm=gdbm:/path/to/db
no "=dbmtype" means use the default
RewriteMap dbm:gdbm:/path/to/db
no ":dbmtype" means use the default; this would wreak havoc
with existing description of RewriteMap
RewriteMap gdbm:/path/to/db
old "dbm" keyword means use the default; unlike the other alternatives,
this requires that mod_rewrite keep track of available dbm
types... but then "dbm" is probably a particular flavor
Of these three, I would settle for the first.
> The 'testdbm' program in apr-util is actually a little command-line utility.
> There is an open question of moving it to a 'util' directory rather than
> calling it a test.
yep... it seems to be quite a nice program
--
Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
