On 10/19/05, Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 10/19/2005 10:44 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > > [..cut..] > > > > > The problem is -not- in creating the transient buckets (if they are > > sent, that's > > goodness). The problem is in transforming them to persistant buckets > > before the > > core, ssl, or other filters who have set-aside operations decide to > > return. So > > there should have been no trouble creating the transient bucket below, the > > trouble came in when the core filter didn't send the data, and also > > didn't set > > it aside :-( > > Sorry, maybe I am only confused, but I think I disagree with you on that. > The proxy code is reading the input filter chain in a loop and does repeated > calls to ap_get_brigade without doing any more things with these brigades > it gets from ap_get_brigade, but storing them for later processing. This > looks to me like a typical setaside situation. > The data was not send because ap_proxy_http_request kept it for itself > not sending it anyware.
+1
