Jeff Trawick wrote: > > is there some bad or unhelpful behavior in apr_uri_parse() that should be > changed? (i.e., don't let port be non-zero if port_str is NULL)
Well, it's *documented* that port is only valid if port_str != NULL. I see no reason why we need to change the code, when the method of using a valid 'port' is documented and correctly used in other locations (such as mod_proxy). The actual URI code works as advertised; we weren't just *using* it as advertised. > > it looks to me that apr_uri_parse() can set port_str to "" in some cases where > there is no explicit port specified and the port integer is set to the default > port of the scheme: > Which is fine... If there is no explicit port, then setting port to the scheme default port is safe (and expected). -- =========================================================================== Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
