On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 14:45, Matt Raible wrote: > Let's rephrase the question: > > For the high-traffic Roller sites, are you using your container to > GZip output, or are you using Roller's built-in GZip filters?
why does high-traffic matter? > > I'm using the built-in filters, not any that are provided by Apache or > Tomcat. Therefore, I'm -1 on this change. Can you give a reason? I didn't say we were going to remove the built-in filters, I simply said that they would be off by default. You wouldn't be losing any functionality. Obviously we can leave them enabled by default and let experienced users figure out that they can disable the built-in compression and use their containers filters. However, my feeling is just that this type of functionality is not something that needs to be duplicated at the application level since most containers already do it. -- Allen > > Matt > > On 11/10/05, Allen Gilliland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > would anyone be opposed to disabling the Roller gzip filters for default > > installs? > > > > to make it easier to toggle on/off i am thinking we can add a config > > property like "compressOutput.enabled" and make some small modifications to > > the CompressionFilter to check that property before compressing output. > > that seems better than forcing people to modify the web.xml file. > > > > this seems appropriate because most containers these days offer their own > > compression capabilities which means it's one more thing that we don't have > > to manage ourselves. obviously we can leave what we have in place for > > those users who still want it, but just have it disabled by default. > > > > this would be for Roller 2.1 > > > > -- Allen > > > >
