:)
It just seemed like a conscious coding style and didn't want
to confuse things...
Or else it was some normal C array/pointer confusion :)
*duck*
On Aug 8, 2007, at 12:09 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
You are missing nothing. Feel free to scratch :)
Regards,
Rainer
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Aug 2, 2007, at 4:29 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
And in fact it doesn't matter. I found it more logical, to have
JK_STATUS_ERROR and JK_STATUS_FATAL_ERROR closer together (for
those reading the code). The constants are not used outside JK,
so there is no compatibility problem.
It looks like your are closely following todays JK changes. I
really appreciate that! Unless you find problems, I just now
commited my last change (hopefully) for 1.2.25.
A other little nit: The see a few places where
we have things like (in jk_lb_worker.c for example):
&(p->lb_workers[0].s->route[0])
Can't they simply be reduced to
p->lb_workers[0].s->route
?
Not exactly sure what I'm missing there...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
