Hi Guys,

I last brought this up a little over a year ago and other priorities intervened but I have now implemented an "apache_table" command and I want to get y'alls' feedback on it.

apache_table as currently implemented provides read/write access to four tables in Apache: notes, headers_in, headers_out, err_headers_out and subprocess_env.

Here's the syntax of the command:

apache_table get tableName key

        returns the value of the specified key or an empty string

apache_table set tableName keyValueList
apache_table set tableName key value

In the first case, takes zero or more key-value pairs in keyValueList and sets each key in the table with its corresponding value.

In the second case, takes one key and one value and sets that key and value into the specified table.

apache_table unset tableName key

Unsets the specified key-value pair from the table. It is not an error to unset a key that doesn't exist.

apache_table names tableName

        Returns a list of all the keys in the specified table.

apache_table array_get tableName

Returns the key-value pairs of the specified table as a list, suitable for array set. For instance:

        array set notes [apache_table array_get notes]

apache_table clear tableName

        Invokes apr_table_clear to clear the contents of the specfied table.

I think the above syntax is pretty reasonable. The part that's questionable is providing access to headers_in, headers_out, err_headers_out and subprocess_env. I know we already have a mechanism for access to subprocess_env and would be more than willing to remove any or all of these, or potentially add access to other tables, although I'm not aware of other tables that would be candidates.



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: rivet-dev-unsubscr...@tcl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: rivet-dev-h...@tcl.apache.org

Reply via email to