On 13 Aug 2014 10:10, "Stefan Fuhrmann" <stefan.fuhrmann_at_wandisco.com>
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 2:04 AM, Branko Čibej <brane_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
>> On 10.08.2014 21:17, stefan2_at_apache.org wrote:
>>> Author: stefan2
>>> Date: Sun Aug 10 19:17:53 2014
>>> New Revision: 1617148
>>> @@ -973,7 +869,11 @@ add_complex_matches(lookup_state_t *stat
>>> for (i = 0; i < patterns->nelts; ++i)
>>> node_t *node = APR_ARRAY_IDX(patterns, i, node_t *);
>>> - if (match_pattern(segment->data, node->segment.data))
>>> + /* There should be not slashes and periods should be treated as
>>> + * literals. */
>>> + if (APR_SUCCESS == apr_fnmatch(node->segment.data,
>>> + APR_FNM_PATHNAME |
>>> add_next_node(state, node);
>> I assume there's no way to get slashes in a segment in any case, right?
So APR_FNM_PATHNAME is redundant. I wonder however why you think that we
> I was under the impression that a '.' in the pattern might either be
> ignored (as per commentary in apr_fnmatch.c) or be wildcard match
> similar to '?' The header docs are not really helpful there. In any case,
> I wanted periods to only match periods.
> Reading the source code now, I found that this flag is about limiting
> the reach of '*'. With APR_FNM_PERIOD set, it will not match beyond
> a period. That's not what I want.
>> Oh, and BTW: please don't compare to APR_SUCCESS. We don't use that to
check the results of strcmp, either.
> All changed in r1617693.
Just a note about apr_fnmatch and its return code: regardless of the
prototype, this function does *not* return an APR status code. Hence, using
APR_SUCCESS is semantically wrong ...
Received on 2014-08-13 13:07:46 CEST