On 01/29/2008 10:23 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Jan 29, 2008, at 4:09 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: > >> Oops. My fault. We need to continue in the loop, but I guess we can do >> the following to avoid an unneeded strncasecmp >> > > Huh? If real isn't a balancer, then we drop to the orig > impl. If it is, then we try to find the right worker > and, when we find it, we match and return. If we > are a balancer but don't find a worker, we drop through > anyway. I guess your point is that you don't like > the drop through on the found-balancer-but-didn't-find- > worker case... is that right? The reason I didn't is
Exactly. > that I didn't want to too much overload the idea > of special schemes. Treat balancer: special for > what we know, but even if we don't find a member, > continue on as we would not matter what the > scheme :) Ok, thats fine with me. Regards Rüdiger
