>> I'll keep my other comments to myself.
Why... the whole purpose here is to build a better product. That only
comes about when people get really involved. You're not going to hurt
either Kevin or my feelings...
We want a better product.... fire away with your comments. I'm anxious
to learn more.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Travis
Sent: Sat 9/15/2001 3:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: Re: [SUBMIT] mod_gzip 2.0.26a ( Non-debug version )
On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 04:21:38PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In a message dated 01-09-15 15:44:43 EDT, Ian wrote...
>
> Coments on coments ( my2c )...
>
> > additional comments (my 2c)
>
> > * Caching should be removed (there is another caching
module there
> > it should use that), failing that, maybe it should be
split out to
> > a different filter
>
> What caching are you talking about?
> This version isn't attempting to have a compressed object
cache (yet).
>
> > * functions should be static
>
> Whatever.
That was a useful comment -- why the poor response?
> > * why are you defining your own strncmp??
>
> Faster and guaranteed thread-safe using pointers only.
Faster than what? I just tested your strncmp vs. the strncmp in
my libc (glibc 2.2), and the one in glibc runs 10% faster than
yours. In addition, your strncmp is less useful (only returns 1
or 0, instead of -1, 0, or 1 [useful in sorting, etc.]), and
isn't
really a true replacement for strncmp, as foo/bar == foo\bar in
your strncmp, where the same is not true in libc's strncmp. I
don't
know of any strncmps out there which are not thread safe -- and
besides,
if there are some, then Apache is screwed on those platforms
anyway.
I'll keep my other comments to myself.
-- Jon
<<winmail.dat>>
