On 05 Dec 2011, at 8:52 PM, sridhar basam wrote: > Anyone know why the mod_cache code has an almost identical implementation of > the apr_hash* functions? Seems like the only difference is that the mod_cache > implementation isn't using APR pools and has a fixed size table. Are there > any advantages using one over the other?
svn blame shows this: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ r94932 | stoddard | 2002-05-04 21:54:39 +0200 (Sat, 04 May 2002) | 5 lines Introduce a dedicated cache hash adt that does not rely on pools. This cures a storage leak when garbage collecting expired entries out of the hash table. cache_hash is just apr_hash with some of the function removed and reimplemented to use malloc/free in place of apr_pool calls. Turns out to be dead code at this point that used to be used by the now-removed mod_mem_cache. Regards, Graham --
