W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qa-dev@w3.org > February 2005

Re: Checking Recursion

From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 07:58:20 +0100
To: QA Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <b02010503-1037-A72C17B278D511D989D2000D9348908C@[193.157.66.142]>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org> wrote:

>Would they allow instance B to check instance A, and recursively?

Any page output by “check” would include the header field and the value would
be the level of the recursion; regardless of which instance of “check”.

That is, when “check” is processing e.g. yahoo.com it will set it to “1”. If
you click the «/referer» link “check” will be processing its own output, which
will contain the value “1”, and will increase it in its own output to “2”.

So two separate copies of “check” will see each other's recursion level and
increase it. In fact, it would be hard to prevent them from seeing the other's
recursion level; but they could of course have different settings for maximum
allowable recursion depth.


- -- 
When I decide that the situation is unacceptable for me, I'll simply fork
the tree.   I do _not_ appreciate being enlisted into anyone's holy wars,
so unless you _really_ want to go _way_ up in my  personal shitlist don't
play politics in my vicinity.                   -- Alexander Viro on lkml

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP SDK 3.2.2

iQA/AwUBQgcRi6PyPrIkdfXsEQKvAgCgpfmvCebAXgmgraNgOsOtkFElV7IAoK1y
xtc3MRo3e7IOxU0d6rm2M2x/
=xGNn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Monday, 7 February 2005 06:58:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 19 August 2010 18:12:45 GMT