> On Sep 9, 2016, at 2:22 PM, Alan Carroll > <solidwallofc...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID> wrote: > > 1.
So why the output array then? > > > On Friday, September 9, 2016 1:19 PM, James Peach <jpe...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > >> On Sep 9, 2016, at 10:55 AM, Alan Carroll >> <solidwallofc...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID> wrote: >> >> No. I'm not completely sure what I meant when I wrote that (maybe it was a >> typo). My view on review was that it should be an in/out parameter where the >> tag (possibly just a prefix) is passed in and the actual tag found is passed >> back. Susan has convinced me it would be better to make split that in to two >> parameters, the second being optional (can be NULL). So the last arg becomes >> "char const* tag, char const** result" where >> tag - the tag to search for, using an anchored prefix search.result - >> optional return value for the tag found (if NULL the found tag is not >> returned). > > How many results can you get? > >> >> >> On Friday, September 9, 2016 12:18 PM, James Peach <jpe...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Sep 9, 2016, at 10:15 AM, Susan Hinrichs >>> <shinr...@network-geographics.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 9/9/2016 12:01 PM, James Peach wrote: >>>>> On Sep 9, 2016, at 9:39 AM, Susan Hinrichs >>>>> <shinr...@network-geographics.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I'd like to propose a slight tweak for >>>>> TSHttpTxnClientProtocolStackContains and >>>>> TSHttpSsnClientProtocolStackContains >>>>> >>>>> Replace the tag argument with two explicit input and output arguments, >>>>> e.g. >>>>> >>>>> int TSHttpTxnClientProtocolStackContains(TSHttpTxn txnp, char const >>>>> *contains_tag, char const **specific_tag_ptr) >>>> The TSHttpTxnClientProtocolStackContains didn't mention anything about any >>>> output? >>> >>> I was assuming that something was being returned via the tag argument since >>> we are passing in a pointer to a pointer. >> >> It takes a nul-terminated array of tags right? > >
