On 24 September 2015 at 17:34, Bert Huijben <b...@qqmail.nl> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: i...@apache.org [mailto:i...@apache.org] >> Sent: donderdag 24 september 2015 15:59 >> To: comm...@subversion.apache.org >> Subject: svn commit: r1705060 - in >> /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_ra_serf: ra_serf.h serf.c util.c >> >> Author: ivan >> Date: Thu Sep 24 13:59:16 2015 >> New Revision: 1705060 >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1705060&view=rev >> Log: >> Refactor common code in ra_serf. >> >> * subversion/libsvn_ra_serf/ra_serf.h >> (svn_ra_serf__uri_parse): New function declaration. >> >> * subversion/libsvn_ra_serf/util.c >> (svn_ra_serf__uri_parse): New. Factored out from svn_ra_serf__open(). >> >> * subversion/libsvn_ra_serf/serf.c >> (svn_ra_serf__open, svn_ra_serf__reparent): Use >> svn_ra_serf__uri_parse(). >> >> Modified: >> subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_ra_serf/ra_serf.h >> subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_ra_serf/serf.c >> subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_ra_serf/util.c >> >> Modified: subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_ra_serf/ra_serf.h >> URL: >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_ra_serf/ >> ra_serf.h?rev=1705060&r1=1705059&r2=1705060&view=diff >> ========================================================== >> ==================== >> --- subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_ra_serf/ra_serf.h (original) >> +++ subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_ra_serf/ra_serf.h Thu Sep 24 >> 13:59:16 2015 >> @@ -1548,6 +1548,17 @@ svn_ra_serf__create_bucket_with_eagain(c >> apr_size_t len, >> serf_bucket_alloc_t *allocator); >> >> +/* Parse a given URL_STR, fill in all supplied fields of URI >> + * structure. >> + * >> + * This function is a compatibility wrapper around apr_uri_parse(). >> + * Different apr-util versions set apr_uri_t.path to either NULL or "" >> + * for root paths, and serf expects to see "/". This function always >> + * sets URI.path to "/" for these paths. */ >> +svn_error_t * >> +svn_ra_serf__uri_parse(apr_uri_t *uri, >> + const char *url_str, >> + apr_pool_t *pool); > > I think the pool should be named result_pool here. > I think we use POOL name if function accepts just one pool, and SCRATCH_POOL/RESULT_POOL in other case. Is not it?
I would not mind to rename POOL to RESULT_POOL in this particular case, but I'm not sure that we should use RESULT_POOL in all other cases if function accepts one pool. -- Ivan Zhakov
