Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 20:26:44 -0800
From: Justin Erenkrantz <jerenkrantz@ebuilt.com>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org, rbb@covalent.net
Subject: Re: Baffled by the negotation fix...
Message-ID: <20020302042644.GH24710@ebuilt.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Justin Erenkrantz <jerenkrantz@ebuilt.com>,
	dev@httpd.apache.org, rbb@covalent.net
References: <20020301223333.GE24710@ebuilt.com>
 <01af01c1c184$382d20d0$7f00000a@KOJ>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <01af01c1c184$382d20d0$7f00000a@KOJ>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.0i

On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 04:50:16PM -0800, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> I don't understand how this is working.  The original code from Will
> came from a discussion that he and I had over the phone.  My question is
> how were the protocol specific filters removed in this case?
> 
> Oh, damn, the problem is that these filters are request specific instead
> of connection specific.  What we really need, is a filter type that is
> request specific, but that isn't specifically tied to the request.
> Basically another field in the request_rec, which would store all store
> all HTTP_HEADER filters.  That way, they wouldn't be lost for
> sub-requests and internal redirects.

Yes, but the concept of the protocol is intertwined with the concept
of a request.  A request should be one "transaction" of a protocol
interaction.  A protocol filter shouldn't survive successive
iterations of a "request" - we saw that didn't work for HTTP.

What's wrong with a simple hook that lets the protocol engines add
filters to a request?  -- justin