On Thu, 25 Aug 2011, [email protected] wrote:
Author: jim
Date: Thu Aug 25 17:38:19 2011
New Revision: 1161661
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1161661&view=rev
Log:
Merge in byteranges
Modified:
httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/http/byterange_filter.c
Modified: httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/http/byterange_filter.c
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/http/byterange_filter.c?rev=1161661&r1=1161660&r2=1161661&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/http/byterange_filter.c (original)
+++ httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/http/byterange_filter.c Thu Aug 25 17:38:19 2011
+ if (in_merge) {
+ continue;
+ } else {
+ char *nr = apr_psprintf(r->pool, "%" APR_OFF_T_FMT "-%"
APR_OFF_T_FMT,
+ ostart, oend);
+ merged = apr_pstrcat(r->pool, merged, (num_ranges++ ? "," : ""),
nr, NULL);
+ }
}
+ if (in_merge) {
+ char *nr = apr_psprintf(r->pool, "%" APR_OFF_T_FMT "-%" APR_OFF_T_FMT,
+ ostart, oend);
+ merged = apr_pstrcat(r->pool, merged, (num_ranges++ ? "," : ""), nr,
NULL);
+ }
Is it really a good idea to first parse the range string (involving lots
of copying with ap_getword), then format it back into a string just to
have it parsed by parse_byterange again? I would much prefer to have it
parsed only once into an array of values and then do the merging in that
array. This is more efficient and I think it would also lead to better
readability. My original patch for merging/sorting had some code for that
which we could reuse:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/201108.mbox/%[email protected]%3E
