From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 12:46 PM
++1. If you get Windows working, I'll do Unix when you are done.
How about the other way around?
Here's the proof-of-concept on unix; I don't promise it's complete,
and don't promise it compiles, but it underscores the
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 12:22:12PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Thanks, everyone, who's commented so far... here's the plan;
apr_status_t apr_stat(apr_finfo_t *finfo, const char *fname,
apr_int32_t wantthis, apr_pool_t *p)
wantthis is the bit flag of attributes
From: Greg Stein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 7:52 PM
apr_stat will reply in a new member value, finfo_valid, to
describe the results returned. It will only fail for the
current reasons. If it can't get a particular result, it
just goes on, and it's the
This is the win32 apr_open code...
if ((flag APR_EXCL) !(flag APR_CREATE)) {
return APR_EACCES;
}
That's not what I get out of the man pages. What is the side
effect of O_EXCL and !O_CREATE? I'm not clear.
O_EXCL is only useful when O_CREAT is used. Otherwise, O_EXCL
On Friday, January 19, 2001, at 06:06 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
From: Greg Stein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 7:52 PM
apr_stat will reply in a new member value, finfo_valid, to
describe the results returned. It will only fail for the
current reasons. If it
One alternative, both a 'wants' and 'needs' value, or simply a
APR_FINFO_FAIL bit that does what you ask. Apache won't use it,
dav quite likely would in the properties area.
I like the fail bit idea, though I don't se why it's
necessary... well you could abort as soon as you
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 01:56:18PM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
...
+APR_DECLARE(apr_size_t) apr_hash_count(apr_hash_t *ht);
silly question: why not int or apr_int32_t instead of apr_size_t?
apr_size_t is the internal type. change that, and you can change the return
type :-)
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 12:46 PM
++1. If you get Windows working, I'll do Unix when you are done.
How about the other way around?
Here's the proof-of-concept on unix; I don't promise it's complete,
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2001 10:19 AM
gstein 01/01/20 03:34:32
Modified:include apr_tables.h
tables apr_tables.c
Log:
yes, you *will* use a hash instead. any questions can be directed to
Bubba.
? A hash and a
yes, you *will* use a hash instead. any questions can be directed to
Bubba.
? A hash and a table are two different things and both are
useful. How do I insert data into a hash and iterate over it in the exact
same order?
apr_table_t is a list, but we don't insert.
It wasn't clear from my checkin message :-) ... I just removed the btable
option. Binary tables are not useful, given our hash table implementation.
What features of a table are you looking for, which hash tables do not
provide?
Cheers,
-g
On Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 09:15:30AM -0800, [EMAIL
Ok, this is a sparkling demonstration of the weakness behind
any validation scheme. Let's refactor it a few times.
wrowe 01/01/20 13:40:23
diff -u -r1.3 -r1.4
--- sdbm.c 2000/12/12 08:54:30 1.3
+++ sdbm.c 2001/01/20 21:40:23 1.4
@@ -177,7 +177,8 @@
/*
Sorry, it shouldn't have slipped in. I'll back it out now.
apr_get_filename_case was a predecessor to the component-oriented
apr_stat ... and if we are hitting the filesystem, do it with a
single atomic call, apr_stat.
On nlinks, yes, I think that any apr app that is providing 'security'
needs
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001, Greg Stein wrote:
It wasn't clear from my checkin message :-) ... I just removed the btable
option. Binary tables are not useful, given our hash table implementation.
What features of a table are you looking for, which hash tables do not
provide?
I knew exactly what
On Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 03:39:26PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001, Greg Stein wrote:
It wasn't clear from my checkin message :-) ... I just removed the btable
option. Binary tables are not useful, given our hash table implementation.
What features of a table are you
Another feature that remains useful, is to be able to iterate over the
array, and know that you are getting data out in the same order that it
was originally added. That feature does not exist with hash tables.
Tables' API/semantics don't provide for that. Tables were intended to be a
16 matches
Mail list logo
