ap_sub_req_lookup_file vs ap_sub_req_lookup_uri

[Peter Janovsky <pe...@yahoo.com>]

when using ap_sub_req_lookup_file to concatenate the contents of two files only 
the contents of the first file are delivered in the response.  alternatively if 
i use ap_sub_lookup_uri to concatenate the contents of two web pages, the 
aggregated content is delivered in the response.  what is the difference between 
using ap_sub_req_lookup_file and ap_sub_req_lookup_uri?  should you use 
ap_sub_req_lookup_file to determine the file's existence and only if you are 
delivering one file in the response?  how do you concatenate the contents of two 
or more files on your local drive?  thank you for your help.

peter


      

Re: ap_sub_req_lookup_file vs ap_sub_req_lookup_uri

[Peter Janovsky <pe...@yahoo.com>]

apache 2.2.16




________________________________
From: Ben Noordhuis <in...@bnoordhuis.nl>
To: modules-dev@httpd.apache.org
Sent: Wed, September 15, 2010 4:03:40 PM
Subject: Re: ap_sub_req_lookup_file vs ap_sub_req_lookup_uri

Peter, what version of Apache are you testing this with?



      

Re: ap_sub_req_lookup_file vs ap_sub_req_lookup_uri

[Ben Noordhuis <in...@bnoordhuis.nl>]

Peter, what version of Apache are you testing this with?

Re: ap_sub_req_lookup_file vs ap_sub_req_lookup_uri

[Peter Janovsky <pe...@yahoo.com>]

i notice mod_include is implemented as a filter.  is this the preferred way to 
implment ap_sub_req_lookup_file?  currently i implement ap_sub_req_lookup_file 
within a handler responsible for calling the appropriate files.  within the 
handler i only have access to the output_filters, input_filters, 
proto_output_filters and proto_input_filters variables in the request_rec as it 
is not included in a filter chain including any of these variables in the 
ap_sub_req_lookup_file call does not contcatenate the files.

when performing subrequests to concatenate content do you need to run the filter 
chain?



________________________________
From: Ben Noordhuis <in...@bnoordhuis.nl>
To: modules-dev@httpd.apache.org
Sent: Tue, September 14, 2010 1:17:43 PM
Subject: Re: ap_sub_req_lookup_file vs ap_sub_req_lookup_uri

You call it with next_filter=NULL instead of f->next? That'll skip the
regular filter chain, probably not what you want.



      

Re: ap_sub_req_lookup_file vs ap_sub_req_lookup_uri

[Ben Noordhuis <in...@bnoordhuis.nl>]

You call it with next_filter=NULL instead of f->next? That'll skip the
regular filter chain, probably not what you want.

Re: ap_sub_req_lookup_file vs ap_sub_req_lookup_uri

[Peter Janovsky <pe...@yahoo.com>]

ben,

    thank you for pointing me in the right direction.  the only difference i see 
between my call(s) to ap_sub_req_lookup_file and the call(s) within mod_include 
is the inclusion of the filter parameter.  maybe my understanding of filters is 
incorrect.  are filters only used to modify response content or are filters 
required to concatenate subrequest content for the response?

peter




________________________________
From: Ben Noordhuis <in...@bnoordhuis.nl>
To: modules-dev@httpd.apache.org
Sent: Tue, September 14, 2010 9:39:39 AM
Subject: Re: ap_sub_req_lookup_file vs ap_sub_req_lookup_uri

ap_sub_req_lookup_file() should work, it's what mod_include uses when
you have <!--#include file="/foo/bar"--> on your page. You might want
to take a look at its source.



      

Re: ap_sub_req_lookup_file vs ap_sub_req_lookup_uri

[Ben Noordhuis <in...@bnoordhuis.nl>]

ap_sub_req_lookup_file() should work, it's what mod_include uses when
you have <!--#include file="/foo/bar"--> on your page. You might want
to take a look at its source.