Garrett Rooney wrote: > > On 1/8/06, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > Author: rooneg > > > Date: Sat Jan 7 13:37:40 2006 > > > New Revision: 366926 > > > > > > > Weird... Just yesterday I did the below, which allows us to > > keep using FCGI headers where "natural" yet also resolves the > > struct stuff.... I think the below is "simpler" since it > > isolates things a bit. > > One thing I prefer about the way I did it is that the code for taking > a content length and splitting it up into the two bytes goes in a > single place, rather showing up in a few different places. >
Yeah, +1 on that. > I'm also not sure I like the fcgi_array typedef. It would be one > thing if it was able to ensure that the array passed around was 8 > bytes long, but as it stands it just seems to hide the fact that it's > an array of unsigned char's. > It's to match the types associated with the actual FCGI header struct members, to avoid any sort of conversion issues. But passing a sizeof entry for the "conversion" things is certainly an option, but maybe overkill for such a specific, dedicated function. Heck, it could even be implemented as a macro :) -- =========================================================================== Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball."
