> From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 12:54:37PM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > > It is legal, but not advisable. It is not better to use chunking than > > it is to use C-L. C-L works better with HTTP/1.0 downstream and allows > > progress bars to exist on big downloads. Any filter that does not > > transform the content should not modify the C-L. > > The C-L filter has logic that if we are ever passed more than > 32000 bytes (4 * AP_MIN_BYTES_TO_WRITE) and we're HTTP/1.1 > downstream, we use chunked encoding. Otherwise, we'll use > C-L. Or, if a flush bucket is ever sent, we'll use chunked. > This is the way the entire server operates (regardless of > proxy). -- Justin
That is a long-standing bug that most of us have argued against now. In the past, we said that the C-L had to be removed, because a filter could have modified the length. Now, most of us have said that this is just plain wrong, and if a filter wants to modify the length, then they should remove the C-L for us. Ryan
