httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tony Finch <>
Subject Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src/main http_core.c http_protocol.c
Date Fri, 29 Sep 2000 23:25:14 GMT
Tony Finch <> wrote:
> wrote:
>>First cut at a filter to buffer/coalesce multiple small buckets into
>>a single large bucket.
>I'm sure this is the wrong approach to solving the problem. The whole
>point of buckets is to avoid copying, so we should re-do the ap_rput
>stuff so that copying isn't needed in the first place and re-do
>mod_autoindex so that it uses buckets directly.

Actually, I think I will upgrade this objection to a veto for two

1. It is easy to write a buffering filter without unnecessary copies
using the setaside facility, i.e. only TRANSIENT buckets would get
copied. What has been committed copies far too much unnecessarily,
and fails to allow for 3rd party bucket types.

2. Including a buffering filter in the core is wrong for the reasons I
stated in my earlier post, and therefore it gives entirely the wrong
message to 3rd party developers. If we include something like this in
the core then we are compromising the design, and we are encouraging
our users to do the wrong thing.

I am -1 for including a buffering filter in the standard apache code,
and -10 for including a copying buffering filter. I do not believe
that expedience is a good argument in favour of blundering along in a
half-hearted fashion and thereby ending up with a half-arsed
implementation of a design which I think is actually quite good.

en oeccget g mtcaa    f.a.n.finch
v spdlkishrhtewe y
eatp o v eiti i d.

View raw message