On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 01:27:19PM -0400, Cliff Woolley wrote: > I would, too. Silently returning APR_SUCCESS seems bad to me; it could > hide problems, plus it might be the case that some hypothetical filter > might consider an empty brigade passed to it to be indicative of failure. > ap_pass_brigade() should not be making the decision. > > So: > > -0 to a plain old if (!empty) return APR_SUCCESS; in ap_pass_brigade > +0.5 to the same test in core_output_filter > +1 to using AP_DEBUG_ASSERT in ap_pass_brigade instead
[already mentioned on IRC] I don't think we should treat this as a special case at all. If an empty brigade happens to be passed down the filter chain, oh well. It shouldn't be fatal (as with an assert()), but it should be discouraged (punishable by wasted cpu cycles). Don't SEGV of course, but handle it just like any other brigade. -0 to all three above proposals (ie. let's just fix the SEGV). -aaron
