Cliff Woolley wrote: > > I am also not sure regarding the alternative DBs of SDBM: Either we > > should make apr_dbm an abstraction layer that will support them too > > (may cause licensing problems), or we should ignore them. > > It already is such a layer, if I understand what you're saying. apr_dbm > lets you choose which flavor you want: sdbm, gdbm, or db. Of the ones it > detects on your system, it picks one as a default in case you just don't > care. I have all three, and it picks SDBM as the default on my system.
Oops... Sorry... I thought that apr_dbm is a replacement of SDBM (this is written in too many places and documents...). Next time I should look at the source before writing... -- Eli Marmor [EMAIL PROTECTED] CTO, Founder Netmask (El-Mar) Internet Technologies Ltd. __________________________________________________________ Tel.: +972-9-766-1020 8 Yad-Harutzim St. Fax.: +972-9-766-1314 P.O.B. 7004 Mobile: +972-50-23-7338 Kfar-Saba 44641, Israel
