Ruediger Pluem wrote: > > 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).
Just to be clear, apr_table_clone can't arrive until apr 1.3.0, which would be adopted in httpd 2.4 at the earliest. Clearer, more legible to be sure, but httpd-2.2 (2.0?) needs the short-lived stop gap for now. Bill
