Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 19484 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2007 22:52:03 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Aug 2007 22:52:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 11710 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2007 22:52:00 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 11636 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2007 22:52:00 -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: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 11625 invoked by uid 99); 1 Aug 2007 22:52:00 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:52:00 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=10.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [80.229.52.226] (HELO grimnir.webthing.com) (80.229.52.226) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 22:51:29 +0000 Received: from grimnir.webthing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grimnir.webthing.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D92E52135 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2007 23:51:30 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 23:51:30 +0100 From: Nick Kew To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r561616 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES modules/proxy/proxy_util.c Message-ID: <20070801235130.70741cef@grimnir> In-Reply-To: <3B21A253728EA247A10A692547A271538DCC63@EITO-MBX03.internal.vodafone.com> References: <20070801080533.GA27048@redhat.com> <3B21A253728EA247A10A692547A271538DCC63@EITO-MBX03.internal.vodafone.com> Organization: WebThing X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.5.0-rc3 (GTK+ 2.10.6; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 11:10:19 +0200 Pl=C3=BCm, R=C3=BCdiger, VF-Group wrote: > Why not using apr_rfc822_date instead? This is makes this function > even shorter and from a first glance apr_rfc822_date is far more > efficient then apr_strftime. Indeedie. I have no idea why not. The patch was an old one that's been languishing in bugzilla. --=20 Nick Kew Application Development with Apache - the Apache Modules Book http://www.apachetutor.org/