Ryan Bloom wrote:
>>On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 11:30:49AM -0800, Ryan Bloom wrote:
>>
>>>Index: server/core.c
>>>===================================================================
>>>RCS file: /home/cvs/httpd-2.0/server/core.c,v
>>>retrieving revision 1.159
>>>diff -u -r1.159 core.c
>>>--- server/core.c 6 Mar 2002 18:03:19 -0000 1.159
>>>+++ server/core.c 6 Mar 2002 19:52:52 -0000
>>>@@ -4040,7 +4040,7 @@
>>> AP_FTYPE_NETWORK);
>>> ap_subreq_core_filter_handle =
>>> ap_register_output_filter("SUBREQ_CORE",
>>>ap_sub_req_output_filter,
>>>- AP_FTYPE_HTTP_HEADER);
>>>+ AP_FTYPE_CONTENT + 5);
thats cool.. as long as it's not FTYPE_CONTENT were
sweet.. (I changed it to header to stop mod_cache breaking)
>>> ap_old_write_func = ap_register_output_filter("OLD_WRITE",
>>> ap_old_write_filter,
>>>AP_FTYPE_CONTENT - 10);
>>>
>>Should we add a new filter type (say AP_FTYPE_CONTENT_SET) where
>>SUBREQ_CORE, mod_deflate, mod_headers, etc should go? It would
>>be in between AP_FTYPE_CONTENT and AP_FTYPE_HTTP_HEADER (which
>>should be renamed to AP_FTYPE_PROTOCOL). The idea is that the
>>content-type should be finalized at this filter level. The name
>>sucks though. -- justin
>>
>
> As I have said on IRC, and in my long message this morning, yes there
> should be. I dislike the name that you have chosen (just as you do),
> but I don't have any better ideas either. :-(
>
> Ryan
>
>
>
