On 25/01/2008, Brian Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Graham Dumpleton wrote: > > If Apache mod_wsgi (the WSGI gateway) does then do this, ie., > > didn't iterate through the iterable and therefore didn't > > return the content through to Apache, it would as explained > > cause traditional Apache output filters to potentially yield > > incorrect results. This is what I am highlighting. > > > > So Apache mod_wsgi couldn't avoid processing the iterable, > > unless as you allude to with how internals of how Apache is > > used to implement wsgi.file_wrapper support, that mod_wsgi > > similarly detected when no Apache output filters are > > registered that could add additional headers and skip the processing. > > Right, my idea was that mod_wsgi could implement a new bucket type, > where the iteration is done if and only if some output filter reads from > the bucket. But, if no output filters read from the bucket, then the > iteration would never happen.
Unfortunately as I think I mentioned on mod_wsgi list previously, that may not be trivial. :-) > > Pardon me if I am not understanding very well, I did not get > > much sleep last night because of baby and my head hurts. :-( > > Not your (or your daughter's) fault; I wrote something different from > what I meant. Okay, clearer now. > I hope tonight is easier on you. Good luck! I hope so too. Am going home early now, but the boss will probably not allow me to read email for a couple of days until I am fully recovered, so you'll probably not hear from me more on this issue. I certainly understand what you are saying and the potential need for it, so will be interesting to see what final consensus is. Graham _______________________________________________ Web-SIG mailing list [email protected] Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
