> From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:justin@erenkrantz.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 11:26 AM
> --On Monday, July 14, 2003 11:55 PM -0700 Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org> wrote:
>
> > What Ryan said. The handler shouldn't ever say "force this to the network".
>
> Which I think is ridiculous for either of you to say when mod_dav already
> calls ap_filter_flush to do exactly that. As I said earlier, I have a hunch
> that it just needs one more flush call to solve this particular timeout
> problem (right after the invocation of dav_send_one_response).
I agree with Justin here. If mod_dav wouldn't already have flush calls I
would see your point, but this is just plain silly.
Also, mod_dav knows when it has reached a chunk boundary that makes sense
to the client. How do we communicate this to the next filter in the chain?
We don't. So apart from flushing, how do we prevent an endless wait on
the deflate filter? Certainly, deflate could work with smaller chunks, but
then it would be less effective.
> Either ap_filter_flush is a valid solution, or it should be removed entirely.
> You can't have it both ways. Requiring the addition of custom threshold code
> to *every* filter is a cumbersome requirement. If you really feel that's
> needed, then we should remove flush support to compensate. -- justin
The man's got a point.
Sander
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Jul 15 11:45:35 2003