On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:10:51 -0500 Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Nov 20, 2007, at 11:54 AM, Nick Kew wrote: > > > On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:54:33 -0000 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > >> + -0: jim (how is this related to ap_send_interim_response > >> above?) > > > > It relies on ap_send_interim_response. Were you planning to review > > that? > > > > Wouldn't it be best to combine those? I can't see having the > 1st w/o the 2nd, and the 2nd is useless w/o the 1st :) I thought separating them made for easier review. Maybe that was wrong? The reason for making ap_send_interim_response an API is precisely that I can envisage other uses for it. Specifically, if time permits, I think ap_http_filter could use some refactoring, and I can see a use it there. Other modules ... maybe. Of course, the mod_proxy patch is indeed dependent on it. -- Nick Kew Application Development with Apache - the Apache Modules Book http://www.apachetutor.org/
