httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Hartill <hart...@ooo.lanl.gov>
Subject Re: patch 90g
Date Sun, 11 Feb 1996 16:15:12 GMT
 
> On Sat, 10 Feb 1996, Rob Hartill wrote:
> > If configurability is required (I'm all for configurability), then how
> > about letting the scripts decide?
> 
> Because to me it's a server attribute, not something that the CGI script 
> needs to know about or be able to touch, with the exception of no 
> buffering.  In my opinion.

In an organization where most CGI authors have no control over server
config, having the CGI scripts "request" buffering parameters offers
the best solution IMO. 

Implemented correctly, the server can override such requests and stick
to rigid buffering settings imposed by the person configuring the server. 

As a CGI author, I might have a script that dribbles out a response
at a slow rate. I might want to say "please buffer in 256 byte blocks"
to ensure the client gets a steady response instead of a jerky one.
At that level, it's a CGI issue. yes?


rob

Mime
View raw message