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 Thu, 22 Aug 2002 18:39:39 GMT
"William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> writes:

> At 12:23 PM 8/22/2002, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >OK, I think it's starting to gel now.  The input filter's
> >control flow (in C) centers around ap_get_brigade.  I think
> >the upshot for us means that converting the parsers to filters
> >amounts to
> >
> >   1) reworking apreq_list_read to read from an arbitrary filter,
> >      not just r->filters_in.  It also has to pass along the brigade
> >      instead of clearing it.  The necessary changes to apreq_list.[ch]
> >      are trivial.
> >
> >   2) literally removing the for(;;) loops from the parsers in
> >      apreq_parser.c.  All parsers take their input from apreq_list,
> >      so the only modifications would be to have them operate as
> >      callbacks.  I don't think that's much of an issue at all.
> 
> It sounds like you have it right on target ;-)

Ahh, glad to hear that.

> About your 'slurping everything from a huge response, e.g. upload'
> issue, we obviously need some threshhold where a given post variable
> will be tagged as present, but too large to process.

I'm no longer concerned that this will even be an issue,
but we can discuss that when you have more free time (and
I've thought about it a little bit more). 

[...]

> Finally, about the storage for the returned body chunks.  I'm not clear
> why you propose the connection pool?  

I don't recall ever proposing that; maybe when I was talking about
the control flow of Stas' perl examples?  Can you be more specific?

-- 
Joe Schaefer

Mime
View raw message