On 10/30/2007 09:21 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Oct 30, 2007, at 4:02 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: > >> >> >> On 10/30/2007 08:12 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >>> >>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 9:39 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> The other option, of course, would be to keep the small >>>> buffer but have some some sort of config directive that >>>> indicates whether you want the 1st or last 64 bytes :) >>>> That seems a nice stop-gap for 2.2 >>>> >>> >>> FWIW, last night I hacked up a quick little way to do >>> this... If conceptually OK, I'll add doccos. This is >>> for trunk but really designed to be the 2.2 stopgap :) >> >> Looks good to me. IMHO copy_request could get some optimization ala: >> >> > > LOL... I *just* like 5 minutes after I sent the above
:-) > did almost the exact same optimization, except I > don't set p to NULL but instead copy it and return > immediately if the_request == NULL. No need for the > strlen, etc... I missed this in my response. Good catch :-). Regards Rüdiger
