Graham Leggett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Jeff Trawick wrote: > > > Agreed, as long as you really mean "zap the content-length header" > > when you say "update the value of the content-length header". > > A filter can't ever be *required* to put in the proper content-length > > value. All it can usually do is zap the content-length header and > > rely on the core to do the right thing (using the content-length > > filter or chunked encoding). > > What I mean is that when filter-x is run, a content-length header > might exist, ie it cannot be assumed at any point that a > content-length header does not exist. > > If as you say the content-length is zapped and readded by another > filter, that's fine then. A filter should not make assumptions about > what headers may or may not exist before it is run. > > (am I making sense?)
I think we agree :) . proxy should leave the content-length header alone . the content-length filter needs to be added for this path If a filter changes the content-length then its logic is irrespective of whether or not this is a proxied request. -- Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Born in Roswell... married an alien...
