You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomcat.apache.org by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de> on 2007/08/08 18:09:53 UTC
Re: svn commit: r562194 - in /tomcat/connectors/trunk/jk: native/common/jk_ajp13.h
native/common/jk_ajp_common.c native/common/jk_lb_worker.c xdocs/miscellaneous/changelog.xml
xdocs/reference/workers.xml
You are missing nothing. Feel free to scratch :)
Regards,
Rainer
Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Aug 2, 2007, at 4:29 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>
>> And in fact it doesn't matter. I found it more logical, to have
>> JK_STATUS_ERROR and JK_STATUS_FATAL_ERROR closer together (for those
>> reading the code). The constants are not used outside JK, so there is
>> no compatibility problem.
>>
>> It looks like your are closely following todays JK changes. I really
>> appreciate that! Unless you find problems, I just now commited my last
>> change (hopefully) for 1.2.25.
>
> A other little nit: The see a few places where
> we have things like (in jk_lb_worker.c for example):
>
> &(p->lb_workers[0].s->route[0])
>
> Can't they simply be reduced to
>
> p->lb_workers[0].s->route
>
> ?
>
> Not exactly sure what I'm missing there...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: svn commit: r562194 - in /tomcat/connectors/trunk/jk: native/common/jk_ajp13.h native/common/jk_ajp_common.c native/common/jk_lb_worker.c xdocs/miscellaneous/changelog.xml xdocs/reference/workers.xml
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
:)
It just seemed like a conscious coding style and didn't want
to confuse things...
Or else it was some normal C array/pointer confusion :)
*duck*
On Aug 8, 2007, at 12:09 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> You are missing nothing. Feel free to scratch :)
>
> Regards,
>
> Rainer
>
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> On Aug 2, 2007, at 4:29 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>>> And in fact it doesn't matter. I found it more logical, to have
>>> JK_STATUS_ERROR and JK_STATUS_FATAL_ERROR closer together (for
>>> those reading the code). The constants are not used outside JK,
>>> so there is no compatibility problem.
>>>
>>> It looks like your are closely following todays JK changes. I
>>> really appreciate that! Unless you find problems, I just now
>>> commited my last change (hopefully) for 1.2.25.
>> A other little nit: The see a few places where
>> we have things like (in jk_lb_worker.c for example):
>> &(p->lb_workers[0].s->route[0])
>> Can't they simply be reduced to
>> p->lb_workers[0].s->route
>> ?
>> Not exactly sure what I'm missing there...
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org