httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject RE: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src/main http_protocol.c
Date Fri, 13 Oct 2000 02:31:58 GMT
> From: Fielding, Roy [mailto:fielding@eBuilt.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 7:48 PM
> 
> [...] requires internal server buffering if
> the request is chunked (something we've been putting off til 2.0).
> 
> I think the answer is to implement something that meets those goals,
> even if it means that input filtering cannot be used with some resources
> (like CGI)

For CGI, what if...

  create pipe
  while get input buckets
      write pipe
  set child's content-length
  create, run child from pipe with content-length  

Really it's a case where we want the consumer (mod_cgi) to pass its
preference back up the chain to the core input bucket creator, saying
we want a pipe.  Win32 pipes are fixed length, so this solution sucks
there, but perhaps for other platforms?

It's pretty clear our entire filtering schema will eventually call for
a mod_cgid2.  Till then might this work?

For DOS issues and CGI, it seems we may need some global limiting
mechanism for these (seemingly unlimited) pipes, as an aggragate and
individually by directory/file (or perhaps based on user auth).  We
haven't even begin to tap that area, but it is an issue for the top
level, perhaps a preference from the handler and intervening input
filters.

------

Deja vu...

We will have to have a communcations mechanism, just like I brought
up at the filtering meeting, for consumers to express its preferences
to it's upstream provider - and if that provider (filter) doesn't care,
it passes it on to the next upstream provider.  There has to be a noop
and don't care option, as well.  If a handler wants a pipe (like this
cgi example) it can express that.  If a filter/handler for compression
wants persistant bytes, then it can express that as well.  Clever and
clean handlers/filters will take the best of what they can do, and
we won't see all the copies I'm expecting as we start mixing different
input and output filters.

I'd say this entire scheme would be a 2.1 optimization, if we don't
start hitting roadblocks first.

Bill

Mime
View raw message