Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 47561 invoked by uid 500); 6 Oct 2001 16:51:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 47546 invoked from network); 6 Oct 2001 16:51:27 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Ryan Bloom Reply-To: rbb@covalent.net Organization: Covalent Technologies To: dev@httpd.apache.org, Greg Stein Subject: Re: [PATCH] mod_ssl input filtering... Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 09:53:20 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3] References: <20011005025014.C21545@ebuilt.com> <045c01c14e39$92068dd0$93c0b0d0@roweclan.net> <20011006091120.E24906@lyra.org> In-Reply-To: <20011006091120.E24906@lyra.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: <20011006165321.7041E46DFC@koj.rkbloom.net> X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Saturday 06 October 2001 09:11 am, Greg Stein wrote: > > however we decide this month (we all agree that > > implementation was 'sort of' worked out, while output filters have been > > very thoroughly bashed on.) > > "handle [fetching data]" ?? Well *yah* ... That's what we're talking about > it. I don't see where you're going here. This all started off with your > comment about moving inter-chain data handling up to ap_get_client_block. > That can't work, so maybe I'm missing something you're trying to say. Start > over? > > > We may not want to be so inflexible with handler > > authors, whatever we decide to do on filters. > > Handler authors simply fetch data. And our interface for that is > ap_get_client_block() just like it has always been for them. I am doing my best to stay out of this conversation, but I think the reason this thread is getting so long is that you two aren't communicating well. That's e-mail for you. So, let me explain what Bill is looking for, and then this thread might be useful. I know this, because of a 45 minute phone conversation yesterday BTW. The input filter chain is text2html -> gunzip -> HTTP_IN -> SSL -> CORE_IN ap_get_client_block calls the filters asking for 8K. text2html requests as many bytes as it can get from gunzip gunzip requests as much as it can get from HTTP_IN HTTP_IN requests as much as it can get from SSL SSL requests as much as it can get from CORE_IN CORE_IN reads 1 packet, and returns it to SSL SSL decrypts it, and returns (let's say) 8.5K HTTP_IN returns 8.5K gunzip returns 15K text2html converts that to 19K, and returns 8K to ap_get_client_block, and stores 11K off to the side. The next time text2html it just returns 8K, and saves 3K. The third time, it queries the next filter, and returns at least 3K. I personally believe that having just the top-level respect the value from ap_get_client_block is not going to help us. In most situations, we are talking about a couple of functions, and a pointer assignment that it would save us. Bill, if I got this wrong, please let me know. Ryan ______________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org Covalent Technologies rbb@covalent.net --------------------------------------------------------------