apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@lyra.org>
Subject split and zero-len buckets (was: Re: [PATCH] Buckets: add copy function, ap_bucket_split_any(), etc)
Date Tue, 12 Dec 2000 00:20:47 GMT
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 08:46:17AM -0800, rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> > > then split_any() could just tell it how much to read, and this wouldn't be
as much
> > > of an issue.  Alternately, split_any() could just keep track of how much was
read
> > > and loop through an arbitrary number of reads, incrementing until the totals
> > > matched.  That's the least intrusive approach.  I'll implement it if people
agree. 
> > > Thoughts?
> > 
> > This is the approach that I had in mind. It is quite simple, actually: loop
> > until the read() returns a length such that point <= length. If point >
> > length, then subtract the length from point, and read the next bucket.
> > 
> > Note that *no* split should occur when point == length.
> 
> This is different than all of the other split functions.  If point ==
> length, then we get one bucket with length == point and one bucket with
> length == 0.  This makes the code much easier to deal with, because it
> removes special cases.

Per my other email, I see the split_any() as a way to "ensure" that the
brigade has a break point at the specified offset. (which allows us to
actually cut the brigade in two, or copy buckets, or whatever)

Given that viewpoint: creating a zero-length bucket isn't important. Also,
the split function would return the "bucket-after-point". So if you had a
brigade such as:

    B1 -> B2

and you split at P==len(B1), then you get back a pointer to B2 (rather than
a pointer to a new zero-len bucket inserted before B2).

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

Mime
View raw message