httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: Better ap_casecmpstr[n]?
Date Tue, 29 Dec 2015 22:14:32 GMT
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:

>
> > On Dec 29, 2015, at 11:28 AM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic.dev@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
> >> In a sep thread on dev@apr, OtherBill appears to be trying to
> >> determine the "right" name for the APR impl... maube we should
> >> wait to see what it's decided on there and we can follow
> >> suit.
> >
> > OK, although we won't be able to use APR's functions until we require
> > (at least) APR-1.6.x.
> > Maybe a follow up patch/backport could later "#define ap_casecmpstr[n]
> > apr_whatever" when available?
> >
>
> Right. I was just thinking we'd use whatever APR uses but substitute
> 'ap_' for the 'apr_', as norm.
>

+1 - minimal delta.  Easily becomes an ap_compat.h macro moving forwards to
make things easier for porters moving modules from 2.4.x to [23].next.


> >> PS: What determines "abusive" usage?
> >
> > When used to compare something which is not a HTTP token or a scheme
> > (eg. config parameters).
> > As I see it, the valid usage is against remote/untrusted data known to
> > be defined in POSIX/C locale only...
>
> IMO, anything we check regarding config directives (like all the
> proxy params) are also candidates for using "our" function. We
> *know* our config directives are ASCII.
>

Directive names, yes.  Directive arguments - not as much. Some are (boolean
flag tests, keywords) but others such as path and url args shouldn't touch
that
function, IMHO.

One thing to consider, is it a startup-path test (e.g. on initial config
read only)
or going to be accessed frequently (.htaccess parsing)?

Mime
View raw message