httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@lyra.org>
Subject Re: [PATCH] Filter registration.
Date Tue, 25 Jul 2000 04:02:31 GMT
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 08:38:51PM -0700, rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> I wrote:
>...
> > Specifically: the ap_filter_t contains the request_rec that the filter was
> > inserted on. This is important if you chain together filters from multiple
> > (sub)requests. The change in filter->r is the signal for the partitioning of
> > filters between (sub)requests.
> > 
> > Roy seems to argue that ->r shouldn't be present anywhere in there. I think
> > that position is too idealistic, so I'm not listening to it :-)  No,
> > seriously, if we *can* get to a point where the request_rec isn't needed in
> > a filter, then it will be easier to remove the sucker from the structure
> > than from the signatures. [because (theoretically) nobody is referring to
> > ->r any more]
> > 
> > But as I mentioned in the other note, we can simply tweak these typedefs and
> > signatures with our specific "filter system" patches.
> 
> BTW, I should point out that ap_filter_t does not contain a request_rec
> right now.  :-)

Have no fear. I saw that :-)

I'm just going to rebuild my patch to insert the thing in there. I
considered its absence from ap_filter_t to be a nit that can be handled in a
followup. The *key* part was the registration design/mechanism and the
absence of ->r had no bearing on that.

[ well, that rebuild won't happen until I get back, but that was my idea ]


Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

Mime
View raw message