On 06/01/2007 11:18 PM, Eric Covener wrote: > On 6/1/07, Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Ahh. Should have read >> http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41551#c2 >> before which answers my question :-). >> Anyway another question: From a first glance your original patch and >> this patch basicly seem to do the same thing. >> But the original patch was said to be non working by the reporter whereas >> this worked. Any idea why? > > > A mystery to me as well, the one-sided endorsement from the reporter
Good. I feared I just missed something obvious :-). > as well as Davi having contributed the original heap-to-pools patch > was enough to sway me to use his patch instead. > The advantage of his patch is that once his proposed apr_table_clone is available in apr we can use this and things where we call it remain more readable IMHO than with the apr_table_do approach (not saying that your patch was unreadable). Regards Rüdiger
