On Wednesday 02 January 2002 12:21 pm, Bill Stoddard wrote: > > 1) Fix the apr_bucket_read macro to check if this bucket is the sentinel, > > and fail appropriately. If we do this, we will add one if to every bucket_read > > operation. > > > > 2) Make the sentinel a more complete bucket along with a bucket->type field. > > This bucket->type will include a no-op for the read function. > > > > I personally prefer option 2, but it may be a bit harder to implement. I still >haven't > > wrapped my head around the ring macros yet. > > > > Ryan > > Yea, 2) looks good in concept, but I'm unsure how APR_BUCKET_REMOVE would be >implemented > to special case removing a sentinel bucket. The latest fix checked into proxy_util >should
It is already possible to try to remove a sentinel bucket, although the result is undefined, and would most likely make things segfault quickly. We could do a quick check in that case, because we try to remove buckets far less often than we try to read from them. I am just not sure that the statement above affects how we should implement the read function. Ryan ______________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------
