> From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 08:25:18AM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote: > > > From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Of course, in the common case of a static file with no filters, we > > > already know the content-length (default handler sets it). > > > > > > IIRC, I've brought up skipping the C-L filter when we already know > > > the C-L (as defined by r->headers_out), but that was not met with > > > approval. > > > > Who didn't approve that? I was under the impression that we did skip > > the C-L filter if we already had a C-L, and it was the filters > > responsibility to remove the C-L if it was changing it. > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I don't know who might have said that. =) -- Justin
Pay attention to what that message says please. It says "The filter should always be in the stack, and it should always collect information." It doesn't say "The filter should always be touching the C-L for the response." We use the data collected by the c-L filter in other places, so we should always try to compute the C-L in the filter. However, we should NEVER buffer unless we absolutely have to. Ryan
