httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ryan Bloom <...@covalent.net>
Subject Re: Gack! Weirdo DAV bug.
Date Sat, 17 Nov 2001 05:12:51 GMT
On Friday 16 November 2001 06:49 pm, Greg Stein wrote:

> The current logic is basically:
>
>     if (method_number != M_GET)
>       return do_get();
>
>     if (method_number != M_PROPFIND)
>       return do_propfind();
>
>     if (method_number != M_INVALID)
>       return DECLINED;
>
>     if (strcmp(method_name, "REPORT") == 0)
>       return do_report();
>
>     if (strcmp(method_name, "MERGE") == 0)
>       return do_merge();
>
>
> We use the M_INVALID to shortcut a bunch of strcmp() operations on the
> method name. Switching that logic over to use the APIs is not going to save
> us much (if anything!) over the strcmp(). For each method, we'd have to
> call into the API to say "is it <this> one?" or "is it <that> one?"
>
> I'm going to have to look into this whole method registration thing. I saw
> it go in, but never bothered looking too closely. It didn't seem like it
> was going to monkey with the method number stored in the request. Eek.

The point was to allow modules to be able to associate a number with a
method that the core server didn't know anything about.  In order to do that,
we did need to change the number.

> Dunno that the method stuff must change. At a minimum, mod_dav can just
> pre-register everything and keep the numbers around for use in the above
> logic. But I still want to get a look at the stuff and see what's there.
> I've got some particular experience with extended methods :-)

That was the original idea.  Modules would register the method at startup,
and compare against that number, which is what the API's do.

Ryan

______________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom				rbb@apache.org
Covalent Technologies			rbb@covalent.net
--------------------------------------------------------------

Mime
View raw message