Ryan Bloom wrote:
>On Friday 07 September 2001 14:23, Brian Pane wrote:
>
>>The attached patches change the apr_table_t implementation from
>>a linear list to a hash table (not an apr_hash_t, though!). With
>>this change, I'm seeing a ~3% improvement in throughput when
>>delivering a 0-byte file over the loopback on Linux. (I used this
>>0-byte test case to measure the inherent overhead in the httpd, without
>>transmission time clouding the results.)
>>
>
>I dislike this. Why are we putting a second hash table into APR? If we want
>to use a hash, then ues an apr_hash_t. If apr_hash_t doesn't support something
>that we MUST have to do this, then fix apr_hash_t. Having two different hash
>alorithms in APR, one of them hidden under a tables API, seems kind of hackish
>to me.
>
Are you arguing in favor of using apr_hash_t in the implementation of
apr_table_t,
or using apr_hash_t in place of apr_table_t in the request_rec? I'm
comfortable
with the former, but not the latter.
--Brian
