On Fri, August 26, 2011 14:38, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Aug 26, 2011, at 8:31 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> >> Agreed The issue is that to merge, you need to parse We could have >> ap_set_byterange() also return a set of start/stop points (in an >> array), so that the filter can work with that and not bother with >> rereading >> r->range. In fact, I think that makes the most sense That is, adjust >> ap_set_byterange() to create the modified, parsed r->range, a return >> status >> and the start/stop array. The filter then goes thru that array. > > So ap_set_byterange(request_rec *r, apr_off_t clen, apr_array_header_t > *indexes) > will exist and parse_byterange() will go away > > Sound OK?
Sounds OK to me. But I would prefer that the array is allocated with the right size right from the start instead of growing an apr_array which would again involve lots of copying.
