On Thursday 23 August 2001 07:45, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 09:03:21PM -0700, Ian Holsman wrote:
> > On Wed, 2001-08-22 at 20:58, Greg Stein wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 03:59:56PM -0700, Ian Holsman wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2001-08-22 at 15:41, Brian Pane wrote:
> > > > > Ian Holsman wrote:
> > > > > >On Wed, 2001-08-22 at 14:12, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > > > > >>We had binary tables, but we removed them, because that is what
> > > > > >> hash tables are for.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >agreed.
> > > > > >but there are no hash tables on the request rec structure.
> > >
> > > Yes there is. apr_pool_userdata_set(..., r->pool)
> >
> > Thanks.
> > never knew about this function.
>
> I am switching my code to use pool userdata but wonder if swapping the
> parms make make the calling convention more consistent with the other
> pool methods that take the pool as first parm.
>
> - apr_status_t apr_pool_userdata_get(void **, char *, apr_pool_t *);
> + apr_status_t apr_pool_userdata_get(apr_pool_t *, char *, void **);
> # this ptr attr value
All of the APR functions take the pool as the last var. This was due to a
communication gaffe when I first wrote APR, but it would be VERY painful
to change it now.
Ryan
______________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------
