On 10/27/2006 03:28 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: minfrin
Date: Fri Oct 27 06:28:56 2006
New Revision: 468373
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=468373
Log:
mod_cache: Pass the output filter stack through the store_body()
hook, giving each cache backend the ability to
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I will also note that the mod_cache provider system has explicit
versioning, so any modifications to the providers should be
represented with a new version number. (i.e. providers for version
0 should work while offering new features in version 1-class
providers.) We
On 10/30/06, Issac Goldstand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you clarify the above a bit? I don't understand what you're
referring to. Looking at the 2.2.3 tag, what versioning is currently in
place?
Look at disk_cache_register_hook.
/* cache initializer */
ap_register_provider(p,
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 10/30/06, Issac Goldstand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you clarify the above a bit? I don't understand what you're
referring to. Looking at the 2.2.3 tag, what versioning is currently in
place?
Look at disk_cache_register_hook.
/* cache initializer */
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 01:53:18 +0200
Graham Leggett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The current expectation that it be possible to separate completely
the storing of the cached response and the delivery of the content is
broken.
Why is that?
(references to previous discussion will do, if applicable)
On 10/30/06, Issac Goldstand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Looking at provider.c, a couple of questions spring to mind:
1) Why isn't this part of apr-util? (it seems similar to apr_optional.h
- just intended for vtables rather than functions, and with this version
info)
apr_optional is an ugly hack
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 10/30/06, Issac Goldstand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Looking at provider.c, a couple of questions spring to mind:
1) Why isn't this part of apr-util? (it seems similar to apr_optional.h
- just intended for vtables rather than functions, and with this version
info)
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 01:28:57PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: minfrin
Date: Fri Oct 27 06:28:56 2006
New Revision: 468373
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=468373
Log:
mod_cache: Pass the output filter stack through the store_body()
hook, giving each cache backend
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
-1.
This breaks the abstraction between the cache providers and the filter streams.
The cache providers should not be in the business of delivering content down to
the next filter - that is the job of mod_cache. Following this route is
completely anti-thetical to the
On 10/29/06, Graham Leggett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The current expectation that it be possible to separate completely the
storing of the cached response and the delivery of the content is broken.
We have a real world case where the cache is expected to process a many
MB or many GB file
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: minfrin
Date: Fri Oct 27 06:28:56 2006
New Revision: 468373
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=468373
Log:
mod_cache: Pass the output filter stack through the store_body()
hook, giving each cache backend the ability to make a better
decision as
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 11:38:02AM -0300, Davi Arnaut wrote:
+/* Is our network connection still alive?
+ * If not, we must continue caching the file, so keep
looping.
+ * We will return the error at the end when caching is
done.
+
12 matches
Mail list logo
