httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <>
Subject Re: char* handler (was: what are the issues?)
Date Fri, 30 Jun 2000 14:36:31 GMT
Greg Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 11:30:51PM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > >Point is: the char* callback does exactly what an ioblock/bucket callback
> > >would do on its own when it must examine each byte.
> > >
> > >So, I will state again: the char* callback is not a problem. If you
> > >disagree, then please explain further.
> > 
> > There is a significant flaw in that argument.  char * doesn't do what we
> > want when a filter does not have to examine each byte.  That is the problem.
> > 
> > It doesn't make any sense to have two filter interfaces when you can
> > accomplish the same with one and a simple parameter conversion function.
> The char* handler is not suited for all filters. Granted. I've maintained
> that it is simply a convenience for those filters that don't want to munge
> through the bucket interface.

The more I'm understanding Greg's implementation, the more I like
it. The only ``deficiency'' in it, is that it tried to be all things
to all people, and so it appears more complex and confusing than it
really is. But I like it being able to accomodate 2 ``levels'' of
filters. It's almost a auto-extensible API.

> When filters can be smarter and work with files or bytes, or whatever, then
> they can use the bucket-based callback. Should we encourage everybody to use
> the bucket interface? Probably. Does this encouragement change the patch
> that is submitted? I don't think so.

And implementing a bucket list looks very easy with Greg's present
implementation as well.
   Jim Jagielski   [|]   [|]
                "Are you suggesting coconuts migrate??"

View raw message