Which array? On Aug 26, 2011, at 9:41 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> 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. >
