I'm sort of dubious on the whole 'retain blank headers' bit. If we put them into the request_headers list, many modules might barf when they encounter them.
Is it possible, by the protocol, to consider blank headers a noop, and simply not store them in the request headers array? E.g. no value [excepting white space] == not present? Bill At 02:40 PM 7/10/2002, you wrote: >Should we also allow "blank" Content-Length headers in 2.0? > >Even if not, it seems to me that in the normal case, we're subjecting >each "char" in the C-L: value field to at least one check before we >go ahead and determine the real value. It appears more efficient to me >to go ahead and simply use strtol and handle the error condition of a >negative number when we check for errno (as we do with 1.3). This makes >the normal condition more streamlined and slightly faster. >-- >=========================================================================== > Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ > "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order > will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
