> Ahhh. Now look at the code below. WHO removes the byterange filter?
>
> Answer, the byterange filter removes itself.
That's perfectly clear, and it's common practice. I (and evidently
others) read your previous post as disallowing that, causing a
raised eyebrow.
> It *knows* there are no partially
> processed buckets that it is holding on to. Nobody else is allowed to add
> or remove a filter - but the filter may remove itself when it knows this is
> a safe operation.
May I humbly submit there are other perfectly safe situations:
(1) Any filter in its filter_init phase can remove another
filter (some of my output filters remove the Content-Length
filter - as it was causing bogus results on HEAD requests).
(2) In the main loop, a filter can remove another from later
in the chain before any data have been passed through.
(3) Where another filter's behavious is known to be safe
(mod_diagnostics filters can be removed at any time).
--
Nick Kew
