At 08:06 PM 5/19/2002, Cliff wrote: >Whoa, wait a minute. That doesn't strike me as the right solution. The >encoding should be one-hop only. If it's encoded and we want to maintain >that encoding, chances are we'll have to decode it and re-encode it later. >Why you ask? Because leaving it encoded makes it impossible to apply >another filter on the proxy server (eg mod_include). Now perhaps if we >can guarantee that there are no other filters in the chain that will want >to modify the content *and* that the client can actually accept the >encoding, then as an optimization we can pass the data through the filter >chain still encoded. But that would only be an optimization. And it >seems like it could be tricky to get it to always work doing it that way, >perhaps. (Is there ever a case where the client does not accept an >encoding but the proxy does?)
I'm not sure. It seems that inflating would be a proxy input side filter, much like dechunking. However, if no module needs to process the body, it would be a horrible waste to inflate+deflate the content. Why can't we insist on the admin inserting a mod_inflate filter on the proxy end if they want to rewrite proxied content [for only the content they want to touch?] Bill
