24 Feb
2014
24 Feb
'14
9:58 p.m.
Yeah, I started to re-read the module, and yes, something is there,
but not easy to understand on a first read.
Maybe we need to enhance the readme with a small example :)
Let's say, we have table 'test' with an array key with the following values:
key[0] with val 'zero'
key[1] with val 'one'
key[2] with val 'two'
and key::size set to 3
If we delete key[1], the we are left with:
key[0] with val 'zero'
key[2] with val 'two'
and key::size set to 2
Now if we add a new key like this:
kamcmd htable.sets test key three
What will be the new key set?
key[0] with val 'zero'
key[2] with val 'two'
key[3] with val 'three'
and key::size set to 3
Is this correct?
Thanks,
Ovidiu
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla
<miconda(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
iirc, the overview says something about this not-real-array emulation.
The size suffix (::size) is actually a module parameter, it is not something
embedded.
So, everything here is more a conceptual approach, could have been very easy
something different instead of [ ] to build keys based on an incremented
value.
Again, what so ever you have as 'xyz[n]' is just seen as a string by htable
module, it is effectively the key in the hash table, you can add, remove,
get, etc..
Cheers,
Daniel
On 24/02/14 21:40, Ovidiu Sas wrote:
--
VoIP Embedded, Inc.
http://www.voipembedded.com
Hello Daniel,
The readme file or the cookboks don't say anything about this.
Can you please enhance the readme?
- the indexing: key_name[n]
- the array size: key_name::size
Question: can the following syntax be used to delete a specific
element in an array key?
kamcmd htable.get students anna[2]
kamcmd htable.get students anna[0]
Regards,
Ovidiu Sas
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla
<miconda(a)gmail.com> wrote:
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Hello,
On 22/02/14 22:29, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Ovidiu Sas writes:
> I moved the discussion here, in a separate thread.
> It seems that what are you looking for is not there ... not
> implemented.
yes, that is way is asked about it.
> If you have the same key_name with different values in the table, the
> last value will be the one loaded in memory.
> You can't have an array of values for the same keys.
> Also, there's no syntax to access a particular value in an array.
> Maybe that's why there's no option to provide the value.
see this:
o key type - the type of the key
0 - simple key - the key is added as 'key_name'.
1 - array key - the key is added as 'key_name[n]'. n is
incremented
for each key with this name to build an array in hash table.
for clarifications, this is still a single key item in memory, just its
format is made 'key_name[n]'. Hash tables by definition work with unique
key
indexing.
So adding such items in the hash table should be like:
kamctl mi sht_add ht0 'abc[0]' v0
kamctl mi sht_add ht0 'abc[1]' v1
kamctl mi sht_add ht0 'abc::size' 2
Cheers,
Daniel
for example:
$var(size) = $sht(htable=>$var(key)::size);
$var(i) = 0;
while ($var(i) < $var(size)) {
$var(value) = $sht(htable=>$var(key)[$var(i)]);
...
-- juha
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda