DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36816>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36816 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-10-06 12:29 ------- The same applies to ( sizeof( worker->scheme ) + 3 ). It needs to be strlen(worker->scheme)+3 here. Otherwise it will only work with the scheme http on 32 bit platforms :-). >From my personal point of view I do not like the pointer arithmetic in this place and cutting the strings back and forth here. Although it would introduce some overhead here, I would prefer using ap_rprintf here and build things up from worker->hostname and worker->port. But I acknowledge that the pointer arithmetic way is already used in the code, so this is debatable. What worries me more (and this is not the fault or a shortcoming of your patch), that there is a need to discuss, what identifies a worker. Your patch will not fix your first example because ap_proxy_get_worker in proxy_util.c cuts off the path of the uri / url. So you are not able to access http://otner.server.com:1234/myapp from your example. And if it is decided that a worker is identified by its complete URL all parts of the code must follow it and the full url should be displayed in the manager then. I guess I should forward this discussion to the dev list. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
