From: "Bill Stoddard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 9:00 AM
> > From: "Greg Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 3:30 AM > > > > > On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 12:07:33PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > > > > > > > 'bucket' is a unit that _may_ be read into memory (although it need not) > > > > while the 'brigade' may obviously be huge. > > > > > > No. A bucket is a unit of data. Totally unrelated to reading into memory. > > > > > > It is *entirely* feasible to create a bucket that represents 20G of data > > > and > > > then shove that out a socket. > > > > Yes, it is feasable. Is it practical? > > Well, yea! Consider a pipe bucket. The pipe is a data source and the network > is a data > sink. We already have code in Apache 2.0 to read from a pipe and dump bytes > to the > network. and memory is a data sink as well, which is what the API was coded around. But pipe buckets don't enter the discussion, so much, because they are length -1. But just try and send 5GB from a pipe with the content-length filter inserted :) Look, anyone who wants to rescope this, feel free to submit a patch. I'll veto only as long as it is faulty or doesn't build clean. That's build clean where sizeof(apr_off_t) > sizeof(apr_size_t). If someone creates a patch, which doesn't cast around the problems without looking first, I won't stop at not vetoing, but I'll even vote for it [in principal.] Here's betting I don't see a reasonable patch anytime soon. Bill
