Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 11:29:57AM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > The sole reason was the keep the present setup, so that if > > is_address_reusable becomes more "accurate" we don't loose > > information on what was the original intent... I'd also > > Can you please elaborate on that? Thanks. -- justin >
Sure... Right now, there appears to be some questions on why we are treating some requests differently and how that affects the pool. Ruediger was looking into this, with the end result that some areas of this, such as what warrants a reusable connection, may be changed. I did not want to rework what was the original logic layout too much, just simply fix a quick problem. The old code has the same if-else-if structure, and I didn't want to disturb too much since Ruediger stated that this was the exact section he was playing around with. With the entry in STATUS I just didn't want the current misbehavior to continue in 2.2... -- ======================================================================= Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball."
