On Jun 27, 2007, at 12:20 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 06/27/2007 05:51 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Jun 27, 2007, at 11:08 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:17:36 -0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ * mod_proxy: Arrange the timeout handling.
+ Trunk version of patch:
+ http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=550514
+ http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=546128
+ +1: jfclere
Looks reasonable, but is there a reference to the problem it solves?
+
+ * mod_proxy: Improve traces in
ap_proxy_http_process_response()
+ to investigate PR37770.
+ Trunk version of patch:
+ http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=549420
+ +1: jfclere
Hmmm. This is designed to improve an error message?
+ tmp_bb = apr_brigade_create(r->pool, r->connection-
>bucket_alloc);
+ rv = ap_rgetline(&tmp_s, n, &len, r, fold, tmp_bb);
+ apr_brigade_destroy(tmp_bb);
Isn't a whole new brigade an unnecessarily overhead (and
potentially large if the function gets used more in future)?
What problem does it solve?
Yeah... all this just so we can see the return val
of ap_rgetline()??
Yes, but have a look at ap_getline in protocol.c which was used
before instead
of ap_proxygetline. It does exactly the same thing regarding the
brigade.
I wasn't concerned about the brigade, but rather the extra
layer of complexity just so we see a return value...
Is it worth it?
