You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to docs@httpd.apache.org by André Malo <nd...@perlig.de> on 2002/09/15 03:16:16 UTC

Re: Review: AddOutputFilterByType

* Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

> AddOutputFilterByType DEFLATE;INCLUDES text/html
> 
> Err, yeah, the code doesn't like that.  I'll try to fix that up
> today if I get a chance.

ok, I see the change, but two points:

- AFAICS the filter ordering is still reversed (in contrast to the
  mod_mime definition)?

- this ordering doesn't affect the DEFLATE and INCLUDES filter
  (because of different filter types), right?. If so, they are
  bad examples for the "filter;filter" notation in general.
  Perhaps this should be mentioned in the mod_mime docs resp. the
  filters docs, too...

nd
-- 
die (eval q-qq[Just Another Perl Hacker
]
;-)
# André Malo, <http://www.perlig.de/> #

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org


Re: Review: AddOutputFilterByType

Posted by André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>.
* André Malo wrote:

> * Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> 
>> I don't have any easy solutions to this.  Well, I do, but it'd
>> require always doing the ap_getword call in the mainline request
>> path (which is how mod_mime does it).  That is so beyond awful...
> 
> hmm, now I had the time to think a little bit about. You'll find a
> patch attached for the current function in core.c - untested and just
> meant as idea. Feel free to throw it away, if it's not a good idea...
> ;-) 

hmm, I have the feeling, my patches are always overlooked ;-)

Don't wanna be pushy, but is there really nothing to say (e.g. what's
wrong with this or so?) 

nd
-- 
die (eval q-qq:Just Another Perl Hacker
:-)

# André Malo, <http://www.perlig.de/> #

Re: Review: AddOutputFilterByType

Posted by André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>.
* Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

> I don't have any easy solutions to this.  Well, I do, but it'd
> require always doing the ap_getword call in the mainline request
> path (which is how mod_mime does it).  That is so beyond awful...

hmm, now I had the time to think a little bit about. You'll find a patch
attached for the current function in core.c - untested and just meant as
idea. Feel free to throw it away, if it's not a good idea... ;-)

> Perhaps we should add a:
> 
> apr_status_t ap_filter_rec_parse(apr_pool_t *, ap_filter_rec_t **,
>                      const char *);

No need to define code twice:
+1.

>> - this ordering doesn't affect the DEFLATE and INCLUDES filter
>>   (because of different filter types), right?. If so, they are
>>   bad examples for the "filter;filter" notation in general.
>>   Perhaps this should be mentioned in the mod_mime docs resp. the
>>   filters docs, too...
> 
> Correct.  But, we really only have two user-visible filters that
> aren't experimental.  -- justin

Unfortunately. (did my tests with an ExtFilterDefine ;-)

nd
-- 
If God intended people to be naked, they would be born that way.
  -- Oscar Wilde

Re: Review: AddOutputFilterByType

Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <je...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Sep 15, 2002 at 03:16:16AM +0200, André Malo wrote:
> ok, I see the change, but two points:
> 
> - AFAICS the filter ordering is still reversed (in contrast to the
>   mod_mime definition)?

I don't have any easy solutions to this.  Well, I do, but it'd
require always doing the ap_getword call in the mainline request
path (which is how mod_mime does it).  That is so beyond awful...

Perhaps we should add a:

apr_status_t ap_filter_rec_parse(apr_pool_t *, ap_filter_rec_t **,
				 const char *);

which takes a "<filterx>;<filtery>;<filterz>" and appends to the
passed in ap_filter_rec_t (creating one if it isn't NULL).  Then,
we can add the ugly code to do insertion at the end of
ap_filter_rec_t in one central place and switch the core and
mod_mime to use this function.

> - this ordering doesn't affect the DEFLATE and INCLUDES filter
>   (because of different filter types), right?. If so, they are
>   bad examples for the "filter;filter" notation in general.
>   Perhaps this should be mentioned in the mod_mime docs resp. the
>   filters docs, too...

Correct.  But, we really only have two user-visible filters that
aren't experimental.  -- justin