httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: AW: mod_proxy_balancer
Date Wed, 05 Sep 2007 13:12:54 GMT

On Sep 5, 2007, at 9:04 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:

>
>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: Jim Jagielski
>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 5. September 2007 14:03
>> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
>> Betreff: Re: mod_proxy_balancer
>>
>>
>> Hmmm... maybe:
>>
>>     worker_is_initialized = (workers->s &&
>> PROXY_WORKER_IS_INITIALIZED
>> (workers));
>>
>> instead of
>>
>>      worker_is_initialized = workers->s ?
>>                                  PROXY_WORKER_IS_INITIALIZED
>> (workers) : 0;
>>
>
> Ok. But doesn't this deliver the same results (at least from the  
> logical
> point of view)?
> It may be that if worker_is_initialized results in something != 0 that
> this value is different between both, but this should not matter.
> So it boils down to a matter of style (BTW: I am happy to adjust it
> to the first version).
>

Like you said, logically it doesn't make sense that the
2 patches work different (yours doesn't and Vinicius'
does)... So I was thinking a different logic test for
Vinicius to try, to see if its something local on
his end...


Mime
View raw message