httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
Subject Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 STATUS
Date Mon, 10 Sep 2001 12:26:58 GMT

In a message dated 01-09-10 10:00:09 EDT, Ryan wrote...

> >> All I keep thinking, is that we are trying to spite RC by adding a
>  different GZ module
>  Don't worry about it. Let's see if we can make a decision on what is
>  good for the survival of Apache irrespective of what that means for RC.
>  Peter

I agree with Peter here.

The only point is to do what is right for Apache *at this time*

If everyone really agrees with Justin/Ian and others that the
development tree needs a GZIP filter BEFORE the next
beta and it ( for some reason ) has to become part of the
core *at this moment* then just go with mod_gz.

You are not going to 'spite' us... I swear. The decision
has always been yours to make, not ours.

We really are trying to help. We just really think that the
timing is a little wrong for reasons stated.

Heck... mod_gzip doesn't even use ZLIB so if my conversations
with Mark Adler about the specifics of you guys using ZLIB
if you want to doesn't prove we really are just trying to help
and make sure you have all the information you need to make
and intelligent decisin then I don't know what would.


The following is NOT flamebait. I swear.
It is just an observation that is missing from the discussion.

I am just pointing out that no one has done a really good
code review of mod_gz even if the 'consensus' is to drop
it into the core. I've already pointed out one or two problems
( minor ) but a new one I found is that it seems to duplicate
the addition of the GZIP header at all times ( gets added twice?)
before the EOS bucket is sent down the pike. Client-side results 
could be unpredictable. Depends on the browser. It is also completely 
ignoring the FLUSH bucket when it arrives and has no way to add 
'Content-length:' if/when it is necessary.

View raw message