httpd-apreq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <...@sunstarsys.com>
Subject Re: dev question: apreq 2 as a filter?
Date Sun, 25 Aug 2002 00:20:39 GMT
"Issac Goldstand" <margol@beamartyr.net> writes:

[...]

> Joe Schaefer wrote:

> > I don't agree.  IMO (using your terminology) the warehouse should
> > be off-limits until the POST data has been parsed *completely*.  That
> > means *only* the content handler should be making any enquiries.
> >
> > Furthermore, if the content handler wants to call ap_get_brigade
> > itself to get at a portion of the POST stream, it should do that
> > *before* ever visiting our warehouse.  Otherwise apreq_request_parse
> > should just gobble it all up.
> 
> I don't get it...  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see two possible scenarios
> for apreq2 implementation:
> 
> 1)  Installed as filter - In this case, any call to ap_get_brigade will
> cause data to pass through apreq (which will duly save of copy of the data
> it recieves in its "warehouse").  Alternatively, any implicit or explicit
> call to $q->parse will trigger apreq to call ap_get_brigade internally to
> grab the data.

That is *exactly* what I'm saying; I think part of the confusion we're 
having centers around *when* the apreq filter gets installed.  The 
content-handler needs the ability to inject our apreq filter at runtime.  
IMO, the injection should take place in the apreq_request_new 
call, and the content-handler wants to call ap_get_brigade, it should
do it between apreq_request_new() and apreq_request_parse().  

I think Stas is arguing that the apreq filter could be injected
later on, perhaps inside the apreq_request_parse call, but I think 
that makes things too complicated.

-- 
Joe Schaefer

Mime
View raw message