Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 81471 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2004 08:50:48 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 27 Sep 2004 08:50:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 81308 invoked by uid 500); 27 Sep 2004 08:50:42 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 80975 invoked by uid 500); 27 Sep 2004 08:50:40 -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 80961 invoked by uid 99); 27 Sep 2004 08:50:39 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.6 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,DNS_FROM_RFC_POST X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [212.180.95.194] (HELO gotham-laptop.axiliance.com) (212.180.95.194) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Mon, 27 Sep 2004 01:50:36 -0700 Received: from gotham-laptop.axiliance.com (gotham-laptop [127.0.0.1]) by gotham-laptop.axiliance.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i8R8lHlM004879; Mon, 27 Sep 2004 10:48:37 +0200 Received: (from joke@localhost) by gotham-laptop.axiliance.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i8R8lGUv004877; Mon, 27 Sep 2004 10:47:16 +0200 Subject: Re: About mod_setenvif in general, application to mod_deflate in particular. From: Francois PESCE Reply-To: fp-axiliance@wanadoo.fr To: Jeff Trawick Cc: dev@httpd.apache.org In-Reply-To: References: <1096035331.12535.75.camel@gotham-laptop> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: Axiliance Message-Id: <1096274836.4210.33.camel@gotham-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-5) Date: 27 Sep 2004 10:47:16 +0200 X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Ok, it's why the subject of this mail was "mod_setenvif in general, application to mod_deflate in particular." the full problem included check of content-length (in some conditions you may not want to compress 300Mb files for example). But in some condition you may also want to set nokeepalive (or ssl-unclean-shutdown downgrade-1.0 force-response-1.0 ... ) according to some response headers (for some obscur reasons :). I find that mod_setenvif is a really nice way to act according to the response headers, the same way it works with input headers, I know that the headers may change according to the filters chain, but it works with request headers that may change through the input filters, so it is logical for me to develop the same feature for the response headers :) Thanks for your answer. Regards, - Francois PESCE On Fri, 2004-09-24 at 16:26, Jeff Trawick wrote: > On 24 Sep 2004 16:15:31 +0200, Francois PESCE wrote: > > > For example, in a reverse proxy architecture, this feature may allow to > > gzip/deflate documents according to their Content-Type, and not only to > > the request-uri or other client-side provided information that may hide > > the real content of what is requested (documents requested via a web > > applications are good examples too). > > if the reverse proxy code calls ap_set_content_type(), > > AddOutputFilterByType DEFLATE > > should work. > > (The connector module for a java application server I know of makes > the ap_set_content_type() call, enabling features like adding the > DEFLATE filter based on content-type.) > > if ap_set_content_type() doesn't get called for reverse proxy, that's > a bug to fix anyway