On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Graham Leggett wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Yes, it is a waste, but it actually ends up to be a bit cheaper than
> > checking for it. Most modules can just ignore if it is a blank bucket.
> > At least, that was the decision when the code was written.
>
> Hmmm... ok. But still - the example code I started working with in
> mod_proxy had various apr_bucket_read() functions that assumed the first
> bucket returned would have the first bit of the returned string, which
> if short enough (eg "HTTP/1.1 200 OK") would be assumed to have arrived
> in a single bucket. Trouble is, the first bucket can be empty, which
> isn't intuitive. How about adding a warning comment in the code that
> empty buckets are possible and should be specifically handled?
The example code you were working with was a very rough example. Chuck
and I wrote it in a fwe weeks, and it was ugly and almost impossible to
follow. It made a lot of assumptions that it shouldn't have made, just
because we wanted to see if it would work.
A comment seems to make sense. Why don't you post a patch with a comment,
and I will commit it.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
