Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 23:08:35 -0800 (PST)
From: Alexei Kosut <akosut@nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us>
To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
Subject: Re: what to do about CGI and chunked 
In-Reply-To: <9611242246.aa20411@paris.ics.uci.edu>
Message-Id: <Pine.HPP.3.95.961124230020.20561A-100000@ace.nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com

On Sun, 24 Nov 1996, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> > 1) The calling module really shouldn't set anything in the request
> > directly. This is, IMHO, just a bad idea. The read_body thing should
> > be an argument to setup_client_block.
> 
> grump... that's how I had it at first, but switched so as not to disrupt
> the existing call interface.  I'll switch back.

The "existing" interface doesn't exist - it was made up a month or so
ago, and only appears in 1.2-dev versions of Apache.

[re a buffer size of 1]

> I'll look into it.  Off-hand, the only way to support a 1 char buffer
> with the REQUEST_CHUNKED_PASS option is to push the extra character
> back onto the input BUFF.

Hmm. Well, we may have to do that. Or keep the extra two chars around
somehow else.

OTOH, we could just redefine the function to say that the buffer
should be able to hold two more bytes than bufsiz. (or, conversely,
that bufsiz should be two more bytes than you really need - the code
needs a -2 or +2 in there somewhere either way).

-- 
________________________________________________________________________
Alexei Kosut <akosut@nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us>      The Apache HTTP Server
URL: http://www.nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us/~akosut/   http://www.apache.org/