On Wednesday 08 January 2003 16:01, you wrote: > > The reason is that the cache name began to be larger than 32 > characters, and there is no mechanism in the cache API that prevents > this to happen (in particular the call to strcpy in function > CacheCreate line 1197). > > My question is why the cache name is not dynamically allocated, so that > it can be arbitrary long. I can't see that there should be a efficiency > problem with a dynamically allocated cache name - however I may be > overlooking some details? >
Oh, with 4.0 series, it is dynamically allocated, i.e. can be as large as you want. The pre 4.0 is, unfortunately, limited to 32 chars w/o any obvious reason, I'd say. Cheers Zoran
