On 2005.02.11, Stephen Deasey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Why introduce Ns_ConnSetUrl()? Why not change Ns_SetRequestUrl() to do > > this? > > Ns_SetRequestUrl(Ns_Request * request, char *url); > Ns_ConnSetUrl(Ns_Conn *conn, char *url); > > The 'original URL' is a property of the current connection, not a > Ns_Request structure which is generic and has no back pointer itself > to an Ns_Conn. I thought was cleaner to add the new Ns_ConnSetUrl > call, which obviously takes a pointer to the current conn.
Very cool. I thought that the private Request structure (similar to how we have a private Conn and a public Ns_Conn structure pair) might have a pointer back to the Conn/Ns_Conn that the request is being processed by. I just looked and that's not the case. Would it be better to add a pointer to the Conn in the private Request structure rather than introducing a new (and similar) C API to one that already exists? I'd be in favor of having the request processor set the originalUrl attribute of the Conn instead of only changing it when Ns_ConnSetUrl() is called. So, in the case where no "redirect" has happened, originalUrl == url will be true. Then, we don't need to introduce this new Ns_ConnSetUrl() at all? I'm not advocating one approach over another yet, just presenting different options we could implement. Your thoughts? -- Dossy -- Dossy Shiobara mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Panoptic Computer Network web: http://www.panoptic.com/ "He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on." (p. 70) -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with the body of "SIGNOFF AOLSERVER" in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
