On 8/23/2011 4:00 PM, Greg Ames wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 3:32 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > > I suggest we should be parsing and reassembling the list before we > start the bucket logic. > > I propose we satisfy range requests in the only sensible manner, returning > the ranges in sequence, > > yeah, overlapping ranges should be merged up front. That ought to completely > fix the issue.
So the only remaining question; are we free to reorder them into sequence? Even in the most pedantic case, I believe that the total array shouldn't ever exceed 1024, because in those cases a large number of the acceptable expected ranges should be in the nnn-nnn, format, or 8 characters long, out of our MAX_LINE_LENGTH of some 8190. If we argue that asking for single bytes is simply wrong, we should probably allocate some 16 ranges and grow the list by a power of four, resulting in a max of some 4 allocs and maximum memory consumption of less than 64k per request.
