httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] ap_r* model.
Date Thu, 01 Mar 2001 22:13:11 GMT
From: "Greg Stein" <>
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 3:50 PM

> On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 11:35:59AM -0800, wrote:
> > 
> > No.  Either way, the old ap_r* calls always work.  The module author only
> > needs to re-learn anything if they WANT to use the direct bucket calls.
> > If they stick with just ap_r*, there is nothing new in either model.
> That is not a complete accurate description of the problems with the macros.
> Let's say the module author sticks with ap_r*. Now, if a utility function
> generates a brigade and delivers it, then they will have an ordering
> problem.

That's only true if the _Apache_ utility author violates the _Apache_ r->bb
model.  The same is true if the _Apache_ module or utility author (using the 
filtered approach) inserts a filter with the wrong value for it's ordering.

So, I'm back to my original point.  Whatever the vote turns out, the solution
MUST be clearly documented to avoid authors falling down a deep hole.

One point that Greg makes is that we need to document how to take your brigade
(or one created by a _non_ apache utility function) and send it down with the
right ordering.  This is true _even_ if you don't play with ap_r*, since it's
possible a utility function that relies on ap_r* had emitted output.

A re-sync call for non r->bb based utility function that return a brigade
is probably the right call.


View raw message