Agreed... if we should optimize, then focusing on ap_proxy_port_of_scheme(), which is part of the actual API, is likely best.
> On Nov 17, 2015, at 8:20 AM, Yann Ylavic <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: >> I would propose that if the below is NOT the cause, then the >> old version remain. There is a lot to be said for simplicity >> and clarity. > > There is still a (per request) call to ap_proxy_port_of_scheme() in > ap_proxy_determine_connection() we can't avoid (AFAICT), so it is > worth optimize it anyway IMO. > >> >> Plus, the whole reason for ap_proxy_port_of_scheme() was >> to avoid the sorts of special numbers the below "hides" >> in various locations. > > Agreed, the optimization in ap_proxy_port_of_scheme() only is probably better.
