Rici Lake wrote:
I favour having ap_pass_brigade do it.
... as discussed in IRC. Yes, I like that too.
However, I think it is a fallacy that a cleaned-up brigade is not too
big to wait for pool cleanup. The brigade itself is about four pointers;
and the corresponding pool cleanup is
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 07:05:34PM -0500, Rici Lake wrote:
On 21-Apr-05, at 5:51 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
Rici Lake wrote:
FWIW, I think the (apparent) practice, where the caller relinquishes
ownership of the buckets but not the brigade itself, is more efficient
since it avoids a lot of
Sander Striker wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem seems to be, that the proxied backend server that is
cached via mod_disk_cache originally
delivers HTTP status 301 and the Location
http://www.beach-clothing.com/where-to-buy/, but once cached
mod_disk_cache delivers HTTP status
Olaf van der Spek wrote:
On 4/22/05, Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[..cut..]
I don't get it. What's your problem? -- justin
The 'here' link is to http://www.beach-clothing.com:8080/where-to-buy/
while he wants it do be to http://www.beach-clothing.com/where-to-buy/
Paul Querna wrote:
Instead I have tested a simple callback method, that will only run the
callback for the matching virtual hosts. Attached is a prototype patch.
Attached is an updated patch.
If no one cares, I will commit it to trunk tonight.
This does include a minor MMN bump.
-Paul
On 22-Apr-05, at 6:19 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
However, I think it is a fallacy that a cleaned-up brigade is not too
big to wait for pool cleanup. The brigade itself is about four
pointers;
and the corresponding pool cleanup is another four pointers, so
that's a
total of around 32 bytes, not a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem seems to be, that the proxied backend server that is cached via
mod_disk_cache originally
delivers HTTP status 301 and the Location
http://www.beach-clothing.com/where-to-buy/, but once cached
mod_disk_cache delivers HTTP status 200 instead of 301 (but
On 22-Apr-05, at 9:32 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
The issue here is really which party can *destroy* a brigade, right?
Or perhaps which party *must* destroy a brigade. This is much less of
an issue if neither party creates a new brigade on every filter
invocation. But some do.
In the current code
