Received: by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id PAA10720; Sun, 11 Feb 1996 15:15:31 -0800 Received: from ooo.lanl.gov by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id PAA10714; Sun, 11 Feb 1996 15:15:29 -0800 Received: by ooo.lanl.gov (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA111890512; Sun, 11 Feb 1996 16:15:12 -0700 From: Rob Hartill Message-Id: <199602112315.AA111890512@ooo.lanl.gov> Subject: Re: patch 90g To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com Date: Sun, 11 Feb 96 16:15:12 MST In-Reply-To: ; from "Brian Behlendorf" at Feb 10, 96 10:10 pm X-Organization: Theoretical Division, T-8. Los Alamos National Laboratory X-Snail: LANL Theoretical Divi' T-8, MS B285, P.O Box 1663, Los Alamos NM 87545 X-Marks-The-Spot: Doh ! X-Url: http://nqcd.lanl.gov/~hartill/ X-Cessive-Use-Of-Headers: check Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-new-httpd@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com > 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