Jeff Trawick wrote:
Glenn wrote:
On Sun, Nov 23, 2003 at 11:09:47AM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Glenn wrote:
Does that mean that it is incorrect to call apr_brigade_destroy() on
a brigade that you have passed? There are a number of places in the
code that do this.
yes; where is that code?
mod_
Glenn wrote:
On Sun, Nov 23, 2003 at 11:09:47AM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Glenn wrote:
Does that mean that it is incorrect to call apr_brigade_destroy() on
a brigade that you have passed? There are a number of places in the
code that do this.
yes; where is that code?
What is the benefit of a ap
On Sun, Nov 23, 2003 at 11:09:47AM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> Glenn wrote:
>
> >Should the filters mentioned above use apr_brigade_cleanup() instead?
> >e.g. what happens if a handler uses ap_brigade_pass() to pass a brigade
> >to a filter, say mod_ext_filter, and then calls apr_brigade_cleanup(
Glenn wrote:
Should the filters mentioned above use apr_brigade_cleanup() instead?
e.g. what happens if a handler uses ap_brigade_pass() to pass a brigade
to a filter, say mod_ext_filter, and then calls apr_brigade_cleanup()
and reuses the brigade? The brigade will already have been destroyed
by
I noticed that in modules/filters/mod_ext_filter.c (ef_output_filter())
and in modules/http/http_protocol.c (ap_http_header_filter()) that
apr_brigade_destroy() is performed on brigades that are passed in as
parameters.
Shouldn't apr_brigade_destroy() only be used on brigades that a
routine create
