Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 33182 invoked by uid 500); 13 Nov 2001 07:08:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 33171 invoked from network); 13 Nov 2001 07:08:40 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Ryan Bloom Reply-To: rbb@covalent.net Organization: Covalent Technologies To: dev@httpd.apache.org, sterling Subject: Re: 2_0_28 tarballs rolled and available Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 22:59:34 -0800 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3] References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: <20011113065935.569B146DFD@koj.rkbloom.net> X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N 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 --------------------------------------------------------------