On 3/26/2015 8:16 PM, Kyle L. Huff wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Ray Satiro via curl-library
> <curl-library_at_cool.haxx.se> wrote:
>> I was basically suggesting you refactor. Look at [1] to
>> see what I mean.
> I'm not opposed to re-factoring as you have suggested, but other than
> adding a `failf` statement to my patch, I am not clear on why/what
> should be re-factored. Perhaps I am missing something obvious (note,
> I am not a programmer by trade, so this might be the case!), but I
> don't see the improvement. Functionally, both versions appear they
> would produce the same result, however, re-factoring it as you propose
> creates an additional/redundant check of `data->set.ssl.fsslctx` when
> using NO_FILESYSTEM.
>
> Is there a specific case/problem that you are trying to avoid with the
> re-factor?

Nope it's just that, a refactor. The result should be the same. As I
said I would do it differently and that's my feedback. I am a
contributor here you don't have to do what I would do. You wanted
feedback, you got it :) I'm sure it will be accepted your way but as you
mentioned you will need a failf. Also please review the coding
guidelines [1]. The if statement should be indented 2-level (you have 3
for the else if) and there shouldn't be a space between the if and left
parenthesis. In other words " else if(data->set.ssl.verifypeer) {".

[1]: http://curl.haxx.se/dev/contribute.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------
List admin: http://cool.haxx.se/list/listinfo/curl-library
Etiquette: http://curl.haxx.se/mail/etiquette.html
Received on 2015-03-27