Re: [PATCH] Take 2 of the http filter rewrite

[Justin Erenkrantz]

On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 01:32:02AM -0700, Greg Stein wrote:
> Eww. No... just move the filter back to the connection and you're fine. We
> can make it a request filter later on.

Actually, you can't make it a connection-based filter because there
is no way to retrieve any request information (such as determining
what the body type is) from a connection filter.  So, we can't merge 
dechunk and http_in unless we have access to the current request.  
This means that HTTP_IN must be a request filter in order to get it
to understand HTTP.

What is the problem with using the pool's userdata?  I don't see
the "Eww" that you guys do.  Or, what is the problem with getting 
the socket to behave appropriately (i.e. I want 10 bytes, give me
10 not 8192)?  

The brigades should not be returning more data than is asked for 
ever.  What happens then is that we now enter a condition where the 
caller may not be able to handle the data (i.e. I only wanted 10 
bytes you gave me 8192, oops).  This is fundamentally incorrect - 
changing scopes doesn't seem to be the answer.  -- justin