Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 36869 invoked by uid 500); 12 Nov 2000 05:56:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org Received: (qmail 36858 invoked from network); 12 Nov 2000 05:56:10 -0000 Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 21:57:34 -0800 (PST) From: rbb@covalent.net X-Sender: rbb@koj.rkbloom.net To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: RE: Implementing split() on pipe buckets? In-Reply-To: <002401c04c64$704eb1e0$92c0b0d0@roweclan.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: locus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N > The cases we are discussing are all fifo problems. Can't we have a common > wrapper that handles (with the extra error conditions) any fifo bucket, outside > of the explicit and atomic calls (split, duplicate) that offer predictable fifo > behavior for filters that don't care to work around these issues themselves? > e.g. ap_bucket_split_any, ap_bucket_duplicate_any, etc. They can carry their > documented shortcomings, and the author who uses them does so at a cost? fine, but those are Apache functions, not bucket functions. These things cannot be implemented in the buckets code. That is all I have been saying. The bucket implementation does not allow for splitting pipes or sockets, so if we want to wrap those, then that is up to Apache. I don't want to pollute the buckets with Apache specific ideas, and how we recover from not getting enough data is Apache specific. If we want to implement a pipe/socket split, then it MUST be done at the Apache level. Ryan _______________________________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org 406 29th St. San Francisco, CA 94131 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------