httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Trawick <trawi...@bellsouth.net>
Subject Re: [PATCH] buffered reading of the cfg file
Date Wed, 14 Jun 2000 17:27:25 GMT
> Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
> Precedence: bulk
> X-No-Archive: yes
> Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org
> list-help: <mailto:new-httpd-help@apache.org>
> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:new-httpd-unsubscribe@apache.org>
> list-post: <mailto:new-httpd@apache.org>
> From: "Brian Havard" <brianh@kheldar.apana.org.au>
> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 03:06:54 +1000 (EST)
> Reply-To: "Brian Havard" <brianh@kheldar.apana.org.au>
> Priority: Normal
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> X-Spam-Rating: locus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N
> X-UIDL: 483097d4dc067f47831c455e8731440b
> 
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:46:54 -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> 
> >> From: rbb@covalent.net
> >> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 08:47:27 -0700 (PDT)
> >> 
> >> > The OS/2 code works fine and is the original version. I did the Win32 code
> >> > too but commited it with the comment that it was only tested to compile,
> >> > not work. As this was some time ago & nobody's complained I'd assumed
it
> >> > works. If it doesn't let me know, it should only require minor tweaks.
I
> >> > think Ryan did the unix version.
> >> 
> >> I did do the Unix version, it it too was commited with the comment that it
> >> was only tested to compile and not work.  I haven't really looked at this
> >> code again.  I find it hard to believe that this code requires the major
> >> overhaul that was posted, because basically the code is working on
> >> OS/2.
> >> 
> >> Ryan
> >
> >Which part of the change is too much?
> 
> Err, the fact that there's so much of it? :)

I'm not at all averse to changing what I did, but "hard to believe
that this code requires the major overhaul" and "the fact that there's
so much of it" do not give me sufficient information to proceed :)

Let's get specific...  

Shall ap_fgets() call ap_read()?  Is that the point?  I can live with
that.  That will probably make ap_fgets() 10-15 lines smaller.

I'll keep the fill_buffer() logic in ap_read() out of line.

What else could possibly be extra?

-- 
Jeff Trawick | trawick@ibm.net | PGP public key at web site:
     http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/
          Born in Roswell... married an alien...

Mime
View raw message