Brian Pane wrote:
Ian Holsman wrote:
Brian Pane wrote:
Ian Holsman wrote:
any comments on this patch?
I just read through it, and I have one major and one minor issue:
1. Is it just my imagination, or is the overlay logic backwards?
It looks like you're making a copy of "overlay" and then
writing elements from "base" on top of it. Shouldn't it be
the opposite?
it provides the same calling interface as the table overlay (which is also backwards IMHO)
as it is intended to do the same thing as the table function. (apr_table_overlay)
But apr_table_overlay yields different results becasue of the order in which apr_table_get searches the table. By putting the 'overlay' elements in front of the 'base' elements, the 'overlay' version of an entry is the one that apr_table_get finds. In order to duplicate this behavior with a hash table, I think you need to copy the 'base' table into the result and then write the 'overlay' table on top of it.
bother.. OK.. I'll fix the patch and the names to do what it should & re-submit
--Brian
