httpd-apreq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stas Bekman <>
Subject Re: dev question: apreq 2 as a filter?
Date Fri, 23 Aug 2002 09:27:29 GMT
[rerouting Bill's reply to apreq-dev, with my followup]

William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

>> looks like you are saying the same thing as I do. Meaning that you 
>> don't really need it to be a filter. Right?
> No.  I'm saying that a parser has multiple uses, while what we are 
> trying to
> accomplish is apreq-filter the post body, just once, for all of the 
> filters that
> want to review the post data.
> So yes, a filter works best.  And yes, there might be other uses for the 
> parsers,
> why lock them into doing one and only one sort of parsing mechanics?


>> Also any chance that we can stick the parsed data into the request 
>> object? just like now we have r->args, we can have r->parsed_body, and 
>> apreq manipulating them both.
> Again, metadata buckets might work even better than adding to r-> foo.
> Be warned that several httpd'ers are bent on sacking most of the r-> 
> structure
> because much of its data would have better homes elsewhere.


>> if you use meta buckets, you have a problem to fish the data out 
>> during the response phase. since the body data is interesting only 
>> during the request phases + request output filters, we better 
>> associate it with the request object.
> I see that as one possible argument, if we were to have folks slurping 
> the post
> data during the request-header processing.  I still need to be convinced 
> that
> metadata can't solve such problems :-)

I haven't played with metabuckets yet, so I trust your thoughts ;)

Stas Bekman            JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker     mod_perl Guide --->

View raw message