www-modproxy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ian Holsman <i...@cnet.com>
Subject Re: should we really be using the HTTP-IN filter
Date Mon, 08 Oct 2001 16:26:21 GMT
On Sun, 2001-10-07 at 02:04, Graham Leggett wrote:
> Ian Holsman wrote:
> > currently the proxy is borked, due to changes in the http-in filter.
> Then the proxy must be fixed.
> > I was wondering why we are using this filter at all.
> Step one is to figure out what the filter does (memory is rusty at the
> moment). If DECHUNK has been combined with HTTP_IN, then we definitely
> need HTTP_IN.

HTTP_IN used to be a connection based filter,
not it is a request based one.
this means we need to change the order in which we set up the filters.
I've got the new one nearly working, (it doesn't dump core) but it was 
looping forever (ok.. so it isn't that near working)

DECHUNK was merged into the new HTTP_IN.

> > shouldn't there by a HTTPRESP_IN filter which will sit on top of the
> > one and read/de-chunk the response and do all the other stuff like
> setting the
> > headers_in, status code etc, (which is currently done in phase four )
> > and doing the keep-alive stuff.
> If HTTP_IN does 95% of what we need, with the last 5% not working due to
> recent changes, it makes no sense to try and maintain two separate
> pieces of code that do almost the same thing.

i was thinking that we should have a HTTPRESP_IN to sit on top of
it would set the headers_in, status and other request_rec fields,
the output of the HTTPRESP_IN would just be the body of the response.

I'll try to get the new code working, but I'm flying out to australia
on thursday, so I've got a lot of clean up to do before I go

> Regards,
> Graham
> -- 
> -----------------------------------------
> minfrin@sharp.fm		"There's a moon
> 					over Bourbon Street
> 						tonight..."
Ian Holsman          IanH@cnet.com
Performance Measurement & Analysis
CNET Networks   -   (415) 364-8608

View raw message