On Fri, 21 May 2004, Stas Bekman wrote:
Joe Orton wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 03:54:58PM -0700, Stas Bekman wrote:
fb = apr_bucket_flush_create(ba); db = apr_bucket_transient_create("aaa", 3, ba); APR_BRIGADE_INSERT_HEAD(bb, db); APR_BUCKET_INSERT_BEFORE(fb, db);
The arguments to APR_BUCKET_INSERT_BEFORE are reversed, right? It works for me with the arguments switched.
right, but why does it hang when reversed.
APR_BUCKET_INSERT_BEFORE(fb, db) expands to something like:
APR_BUCKET_NEXT(db) = fb; APR_BUCKET_PREV(db) = APR_BUCKET_PREV(fb); APR_BUCKET_NEXT(APR_BUCKET_PREV(fb)) = db; APR_BUCKET_PREV(fb) = db;
Obviously for this to work, all that has to happen is that fb's prev pointer and the next pointer of that bucket must correctly point to each other. Everything else is arbitrarily overwritten. Did you try running this with bucket debugging turned on like I suggested? If you do that, then a bunch of ring consistency checks will be run for you at strategic times that might help you discern when it is that your brigade gets corrupted.
Shouldn't it work both ways? If not, then it should produce an error and not hang.
No... it's just a macro manipulating some pointers. Error handling would be difficult (given the number of layers of macros) and expensive.
I understand all that, but I guess I fail to pass the point across. It is not a problem that I encounter in my code. On the contrary I'm writing tests that exercise, both valid and invalid ways the API can be called. API that hangs when called in invalid way is a problem. Don't you think?
APR_BUCKET_INSERT_BEFORE(fb, db);
is not the most intuitive API, and it's very easy to mix the arguments (since both are of the same type). I have to pause every time and think hard to see whether I've got it right.
Granted, if I was passing NULL or a corrupted reference and getting a segfault, then it'll be my problem. But how do you suggest that we protect users from doing mistakes and more important how do we point out those mistakes in the error message and not having each user submit a bug report, us waste hours trying to understand what the problem is, just to discover that the user got the arguments in the wrong order.
I suppose if APR doesn't do validation, we will be forced to write wrappers which will do the validation :( I understand that this validation may slow things down and therefore an undesired thing. I'm not sure what's the happy compromise here.
-- __________________________________________________________________ Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
