My point exactly. And take note - they are guarenteed to do the same thing *assuming* the request is passed in is the last request in the chain. I was avoiding coding to avoid that implicit assumption (an assert(r->next == NULL) would serve the same purpose).
sterling On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote: > On Monday 12 November 2001 11:52 pm, sterling wrote: > > > As far as your suggested patch - why is that better (and don't say > > performance wise - with all the string comparisons going on in a request > > a small while loop in an error case won't affect that much)? Really, we > > want to ensure that the filters are added to the last request (since those > > are the filters that are going to be called). Sure, either patch fixes the > > bug though - > > Actually the two patches are gauranteed to do the same thing. By definition, > when we get into this function, the request that is passed in is the last request > in the chain. Since the two patches are equivalent functionally, it really doesn't > matter which is applied. The reality is that Justin's will perform better, but we > are talking about an error condition, so the incredibly small performance > benefit will never be big enough to make any difference at all. > > Ryan > > ______________________________________________________________ > Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -------------------------------------------------------------- >
