Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 07:12:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: rbb@covalent.net
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: Re: filtering patches
In-Reply-To: <20000711174406.F29590@lyra.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007120712030.1077-100000@koj.rkbloom.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Greg Stein wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 11, 2000 at 07:16:05AM -0700, rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > > > From: rbb@covalent.net [mailto:rbb@covalent.net]
> > >
> > > Sorry I didn't follow Roy's exact comment till your checkin and didn't
> > > comment in time, but...
> > > 
> > > Please provide 2 concrete non-httpd applications of the brigades or filters.
> > > If that isn't possible, I'm positively -1 on inserting this into APR.
> > 
> > Firstly, ignore filters.  The filters aren't being put into APR, just the
> > bucket brigades.
> 
> Bucket brigades are tied, also. Looking at your current definition, you have
> AP_BUCKET_cached_entity and AP_BUCKET_URI. I'm presuming the latter is a
> subrequest of some kind. I know Roy's version suggested a subrequest would
> be a bucket.
> 
> Those files can sit in APR while Roy evaluates the stuff. But that is the
> only reason they should be sitting there.

Actually, given enough time to finish the patch, bucket types could be
made pluggable.  I haven't progressed that far yet.

Ryan

_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom                        	rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------