On Wed, 2001-09-19 at 14:28, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 12:25:36PM -0700, Brian Pane wrote:
> > The original approach that I posted was a traditional iterator object:
> >
> > typedef struct apr_table_iter_t apr_table_iter_t;
> > apr_table_iter_t * apr_table_iter_make(apr_pool_t *p,
> > const apr_table_t *t);
> >
> > apr_status_t apr_table_iter_next(apr_table_iter_t *iterator,
> > const char **key,
> > const char **value);
> >
> > In my experience, this is an easy change to make, at least in the core
> > modules (I only had to change half a dozen places in httpd-2.0 to get
> > it to work.)
> >
> > Does anybody have thoughts for or against this iterator API?
>
> +1. Accessing the structures directly goes against our philosophy.
Can we use the same API structure as the hash table?
apr_table_index_t* apr_table_first( apr_pool_t*p, apr_table_t*t)
apr_table_index_t* apr_table_next(apr_table_index_t*)
void apr_table_this(apr_table_index_t*,const char**key,const
char**value)
http://docx.webperf.org/group__APR__Hash.html
> -- justin
--
Ian Holsman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Performance Measurement & Analysis
CNET Networks - (415) 364-8608
