On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 08:29:22 -0400 , Lilantha Darshana wrote > >I guess your concern is keeping the request_rec as a global pointer and > when > >multiple requests are being served there is a problem of keeping multiple > >request_rec s. Also when calling send_response_bytes and get_request_bytes > >there is no way to associate it with the relevant request_rec.These > concerns > >are relevant only when multithreading. > > >yes,It would be better if we can avoid this global varible. > > >We suggest the follwing to solve this issue. > >The signature process_request(soapstream *) is changed to process_request > >(soapstream *, void *) so that the request_rec pointer can be passed to > axis > >so that send_response_bytes and get_request_bytes can be called with that > >pointer. Would that solve the problem for writing a module for IIS? do you > >have an idea on how this would affect other modules? > > This would be little ok. But why you want to pass unwanted > information around. What need to be passed into process_request(...) > is only the SOAP envelop & the set of headers or additionally the > actual path of the server. > > To pass only the body content & headers. I would prefer of having > I/O streams rather than a server specific structure like request_rec > (even though you refer it using a void*).
do you mean stl I/O streams? -- Lanka Software Foundation (http://www.opensource.lk) Promoting Open-Source Development in Sri Lanka
