Doug MacEachern wrote:
> ok, its the mixing of Add and Set directives that i was missing. i agree
> something needs to be fixed, but i don't think 2.0 is fixing it the
> right way. the main problem i have is that current 2.0 breaks this:
>
> Add A 1
>
>
> Add A 2
>
>
> inside foo, 1.x
ok, its the mixing of Add and Set directives that i was missing. i agree
something needs to be fixed, but i don't think 2.0 is fixing it the
right way. the main problem i have is that current 2.0 breaks this:
Add A 1
Add A 2
inside foo, 1.x would get both 1 and 2, 2.0 only gets 2. that
Doug MacEachern wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, Stas Bekman wrote:
>
>
>>which as we have discussed is not what we want, since we don't want all
>>the data from the two. The overlay structure should override the base
>>structure if the same key exists in both. I guess I should put a better
>>
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, Stas Bekman wrote:
> which as we have discussed is not what we want, since we don't want all
> the data from the two. The overlay structure should override the base
> structure if the same key exists in both. I guess I should put a better
> comment in place.
ok, remind m
Doug MacEachern wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, Stas Bekman wrote:
>
>
>>exactly for the same reason that addn() should be used.
>>apr_table_overlay uses setn() which will loose all pairs with the same
>>key but the last one added.
>>
>>apr_table_overlay:
>> * for (i = 0; i < barr->nelts; +
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, Stas Bekman wrote:
> exactly for the same reason that addn() should be used.
> apr_table_overlay uses setn() which will loose all pairs with the same
> key but the last one added.
>
> apr_table_overlay:
> * for (i = 0; i < barr->nelts; ++i) {
> * if (flags & AP
Doug MacEachern wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, Stas Bekman wrote:
>
>
>>yes, that's a bug, must be addn()
>>
>
> remind me why we don't just use apr_table_overlay like 1.x does for SetVar?
exactly for the same reason that addn() should be used.
apr_table_overlay uses setn() which will loose
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, Stas Bekman wrote:
> yes, that's a bug, must be addn()
remind me why we don't just use apr_table_overlay like 1.x does for SetVar?
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-m
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Index: modperl_config.c
> ===
> RCS file: /home/cvs/modperl-2.0/src/modules/perl/modperl_config.c,v
> -else if ((val = (char *)apr_table_get(base, entries[i].key))){
> -apr_t
