httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <>
Subject Re: [PATCH] UseCanonicalName (1.3/2.x)
Date Thu, 13 Nov 2003 19:05:23 GMT
Jeff Trawick wrote:
> is there some bad or unhelpful behavior in apr_uri_parse() that should be 
> changed?  (i.e., don't let port be non-zero if port_str is NULL)

Well, it's *documented* that port is only valid if port_str != NULL.
I see no reason why we need to change the code, when the method
of using a valid 'port' is documented and correctly used in
other locations (such as mod_proxy). The actual URI code works
as advertised; we weren't just *using* it as advertised.

> it looks to me that apr_uri_parse() can set port_str to "" in some cases where 
> there is no explicit port specified and the port integer is set to the default 
> port of the scheme:

Which is fine... If there is no explicit port, then setting port
to the scheme default port is safe (and expected). 

   Jim Jagielski   [|]   [|]
      "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
             will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson

View raw message