httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/modules/filters mod_deflate.c
Date Mon, 20 May 2002 01:54:17 GMT
At 08:06 PM 5/19/2002, Cliff wrote:

>Whoa, wait a minute.  That doesn't strike me as the right solution.  The
>encoding should be one-hop only.  If it's encoded and we want to maintain
>that encoding, chances are we'll have to decode it and re-encode it later.
>Why you ask?  Because leaving it encoded makes it impossible to apply
>another filter on the proxy server (eg mod_include).  Now perhaps if we
>can guarantee that there are no other filters in the chain that will want
>to modify the content *and* that the client can actually accept the
>encoding, then as an optimization we can pass the data through the filter
>chain still encoded.  But that would only be an optimization.  And it
>seems like it could be tricky to get it to always work doing it that way,
>perhaps.  (Is there ever a case where the client does not accept an
>encoding but the proxy does?)

I'm not sure.  It seems that inflating would be a proxy input side filter,
much like dechunking.

However, if no module needs to process the body, it would be a horrible
waste to inflate+deflate the content.

Why can't we insist on the admin inserting a mod_inflate filter on the
proxy end if they want to rewrite proxied content [for only the content
they want to touch?]

Bill


Mime
View raw message