On Wed, 16 May 2001, barries wrote:
> What's the philosophy behind the naming of InputMessageFilter and
> InputBodyFilter, which seem to correspond to input connection filters
> (ie for the headers) and input request filters (ie for the content).
that's the idea. InputMessageFilter needs to be per-server,
InputBodyFilter can be per-{directory,location,files,etc}
rather than have 5 different directives for each input filter type, i
wanted to have 1 and attributes can be used to specify the type.
with InputBodyFilter (AP_FTYPE_CONTENT) being the default.
> Do you plan on a similar dichotomy for output filters? Not that I see a
> need, but maybe I'm missing something...
not sure yet.
> Or am I trying to decypher something due to change?
there will be an interface added which is closer to the C api as an
alternative to using directives. ap_register_output_filter allows you to
specify the filter type that subroutine attributes are currently used for.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
