httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sterling <sterl...@covalent.net>
Subject Re: 2_0_28 tarballs rolled and available
Date Tue, 13 Nov 2001 07:11:55 GMT
My point exactly.

And take note - they are guarenteed to do the same thing *assuming* the
request is passed in is the last request in the chain.  I was avoiding
coding to avoid that implicit assumption (an assert(r->next == NULL)
would serve the same purpose).

sterling


On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote:

> On Monday 12 November 2001 11:52 pm, sterling wrote:
>
> > As far as your suggested patch  - why is that better (and don't say
> > performance wise - with all the string comparisons going on in a request
> > a small while loop in an error case won't affect that much)?  Really, we
> > want to ensure that the filters are added to the last request (since those
> > are the filters that are going to be called).  Sure, either patch fixes the
> > bug though -
>
> Actually the two patches are gauranteed to do the same thing. By definition,
> when we get into this function, the request that is passed in is the last request
> in the chain.  Since the two patches are equivalent functionally, it really doesn't
> matter which is applied.  The reality is that Justin's will perform better, but we
> are talking about an error condition, so the incredibly small performance
> benefit will never be big enough to make any difference at all.
>
> Ryan
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Ryan Bloom				rbb@apache.org
> Covalent Technologies			rbb@covalent.net
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>


Mime
View raw message