httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dean Gaudet <dgau...@arctic.org>
Subject Re: cvs commit: apache-1.3/src/modules/standard mod_autoindex.c mod_include.c
Date Sun, 16 May 1999 23:34:16 GMT
On Fri, 14 May 1999, Raymond S Brand wrote:

> Dean Gaudet wrote:
> >         /* Kludge --- Doing this allows the caller to safely destroy the
> >          * sub_req
> >          */
> >         r->pool = ap_make_sub_pool(r->pool);
> > 
> > Sorry, but that's just way off my bogosity meter.
> 
> No more bogus than the current situation in mod_include.

Not really, the current situation is that it avoids destroying the
subrequest... which has a similar effect, as you point out with the patch
you just included.  And further, it's local to mod_include. 

> I fail to see how the above call sequence can happen. Can you flesh it out
> some? And are there any ap_*sub_req*() calls in the sequence?

It would require some crap in cleanups I'm sure, so I'll stop stretching. 
But I'm certainly not going to ignore the 2.0 implications w.r.t. 
context... you can ignore them if you want, but I can't. 

> The sub_pool business is ONLY there so that a sub_req can be destroyed. I'm
> tired of this argument. Use the following;

I'm sorry you're tired of this argument, but I'm also of the opinion that
something is wrong with the subrequest mechanism and that there is an
abstraction we're missing... the stuff which is in mod_include already is
an example of something which isn't quite clean -- but is there to support
pre-existing functionality.  What you're talking about is new
functionality.

Maybe the abstraction is as simple as a "root environment" or "global
environment".  Or maybe we need to distinguish between a partial
subrequest and a full subrequest -- partial meaning "provides part of the
full response object".  I don't know.  I stopped hacking on this when I
got mod_include to work properly without memory corruption. 

There's still something else I brought up -- I think this is backwards.  I
don't think mod_autoindex should be bending over to behave like
mod_include.  I think mod_autoindex should provide a way to be included by
mod_include. 

Dean



Mime
View raw message