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: mod_proxy http request body code review request
Date Sun, 11 Sep 2005 21:09:12 GMT
Jeff Trawick wrote:
> On 9/8/05, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> 
>>As many of the proxy reviewers could not follow
>>http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/httpd/httpd/branches/proxy-reqbody-2.0.x/modules/proxy/proxy_http.c?rev=230744&r1=230703&r2=230744
>>
>>I've provided the following fork of that codebase, to try to repair the
>>damage from the vetoed 171205 commit, in a piece by piece analysis of
>>what's changed and why.
> 
> Here's the "why" for normally using chunked encoding to origin server
> if client sent to our proxy using chunked encoding:
> 
> If origin server doesn't support chunked, it wasn't going to work
> bypassing this proxy or using some other proxy implementations anyway;
> therefore unlikely that client code would be chunking to a server that
> doesn't support it (if this configuration only works when an uplevel
> Apache proxy is in the middle, admin can go a step further and use the
> sendcl setting to convert from chunked to cl)
> 
> For the record, what is wrong with that?

Nothing by me, but do, go back over Roy's original response.

Note that we can proxy a 1.0 server for a 1.1 client, and that client is
welcome to pass us CL chunked, we'll do the homework.

> This is of interest because using chunked potentially results in lower
> resource use.

This has not changed.  If the body is smaller than the readahead buffer,
we will send it with C-L, however if the body is larger, it prefers to
be sent on in the original chunked format, unless the user configures to
explicitly use sendcl.  There's no significant increase in resource
consumption, AFAICT.

Does that make more sense?

Bill

Mime
View raw message