--On Wednesday, June 11, 2003 5:14 PM -0400 Cliff Woolley
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
What you are really wanting to do is a partial concatenation of the brigade.
Something like (not there, but it could be easily added):
APR_BRIGADE_CONCAT_UNTIL(b,
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
for (bucket = APR_BUCKET_FIRST(ctx-b);
bucket != e bucket != APR_BRIGADE_LAST(ctx-b);
bucket = APR_BUCKET_NEXT(bucket)) {
apr_bucket_remove(bucket);
APR_BRIGADE_INSERT_TAIL(b, bucket);
}
No! Bad!! The whole beauty of the ring
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 05:07:32PM -0400, Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
for (bucket = APR_BUCKET_FIRST(ctx-b);
bucket != e bucket != APR_BRIGADE_LAST(ctx-b);
bucket = APR_BUCKET_NEXT(bucket)) {
apr_bucket_remove(bucket);
Title: RE: [PATCH] Avoid unnecessary brigade splits on core input and output filters. WAS: EOS or FLUSH buckets
Cliff,
Is your code assuming that b is empty? If so, I'm not sure we can make that assumption.
-Original Message-
From: Cliff Woolley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Juan Rivera wrote:
Is your code assuming that b is empty? If so, I'm not sure we can make that
assumption.
Nope, that is not an assumption. It works regardless of how many buckets
are in brigade b.
--Cliff
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 05:55:10PM -0400, Cliff Woolley wrote:
I should point out that the above code does one thing that my code does
not: it allows for bucket e to be completely absent from ctx-b. (In
which case ctx-b would be left completely empty at the end of the loop.)
My code assumes
--On Tuesday, June 10, 2003 4:59 PM -0400 Juan Rivera [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I'm including a patch that fixes this problem. It does what I mentioned
below. In the input filter, it moves the buckets rather than creating a new
brigade and then concatenate. In the output filter it splits the
Juan Rivera wrote:
I'm seen this problem with a SOCKS protocol module I wrote.
I'm including a patch that fixes this problem. It does what I mentioned
below. In the input filter, it moves the buckets rather than creating a
new brigade and then concatenate. In the output filter it splits the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Juan Rivera wrote:
I'm seen this problem with a SOCKS protocol module I wrote.
I'm including a patch that fixes this problem. It does what I
mentioned below. In the input filter, it moves the buckets rather than
creating a new brigade and then concatenate. In the
On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
What you are really wanting to do is a partial concatenation of the brigade.
Something like (not there, but it could be easily added):
APR_BRIGADE_CONCAT_UNTIL(b, ctx-b, e)
I'm not sure I see exactly where you're going, but you might be able to
Title: RE: [PATCH] Avoid unnecessary brigade splits on core input and output filters. WAS: EOS or FLUSH buckets
Cliff,
How would the code look like? I tried unsplicing from the first bucket to the bucket previous to e and then splicing it at the tail of b. But didn't work. I don't
Title: [PATCH] Avoid unnecessary brigade splits on core input and output filters. WAS: EOS or FLUSH buckets
I'm seen this problem with a SOCKS protocol module I wrote.
I'm including a patch that fixes this problem. It does what I mentioned below. In the input filter, it moves the buckets
12 matches
Mail list logo
