[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: [PATCH] Fix for Issue 1267

From: Philip Martin <philip_at_codematters.co.uk>
Date: 2003-07-18 18:58:23 CEST

Shlomi Fish <shlomif@vipe.stud.technion.ac.il> writes:

>> I don't know much about the neon-Subversion interface, but this looks
>> a little odd to me. Why are two separate batons allocated (ssl_baton
>> and bt) one of which contains a pointer to the other? Should they be
>> combined?
> Not really. ssl_baton is for the server_ssl_callback function and itself
> contains two other batons (the ras and the bt). bt is the neon session
> baton, and it does not contain ras. We need them all.

It's the double allocation that looks odd. I suppose I asking why

  struct server_ssl_callback_baton_t
     svn_ra_ne_session_baton_t *ne_sess_baton;
  ssl_baton = apr_palloc(...);
  bt = apr_palloc(...)
  ssl_baton->ne_sess_baton = bt;

rather than

  struct server_ssl_callback_baton_t
     svn_ra_ne_session_baton_t ne_sess_baton;
  ssl_baton = apr_palloc(...);
  bt = &ssl_baton->ne_sess_baton;

I don't really object to the way you have done it, I'm just wondering
if it's deliberate. APR's pools provide allocations are cheap so it
suppose it doesn't really matter.

Philip Martin
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Jul 18 18:59:23 2003

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.