On Thursday 15 November 2001 12:18 am, sterling wrote: > On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote: > > On Wednesday 14 November 2001 06:10 pm, sterling wrote: > > > Hi - > > > > > > I am not too familiar with the OLD_WRITE filter, but I have run into an > > > interesting situation. I want to ensure that my filter is before any > > > of the FTYPE_CONTENT filters. The only way to do this is to make mine > > > FTYPE_CONTENT-1. However, OLD_WRITE assumes (since it is set as > > > FTYPE_CONTENT-1) that it is the first filter in output_filters (and > > > then assumes that in fact it is the first one without checking). > > > > > > Maybe OLD_WRITE should be set to 0 (or AP_FTYPE_FIRST or something) so > > > you can have more fine grained filter ordering. Here is a patch that > > > implements that (and also gets rid of an assumption in buffer_output). > > > > > > As I said, not sure if this is the right fix, any suggestions (MAYBE an > > > FTYPE_FIRST instead of FTYPE_CONTENT-1)? > > > > The OLD_WRITE filter is a CONTENT filter, so I am leaving it with that > > type, but to allow some space to manuver, I changed it to FTYPE_CONTENT - > > 10. > > which happens to be 0 (what my patch had)
Yeah, but the details are slightly different. By using FTYPE_CONTENT - 10, I leave it as a CONTENT filter, instead of having to create a special filter type for filters that have to be absolutely first. All filters are registered according to what they do, not where they belong in the filter stack. Ryan ______________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------
