>> I guess I was looking for a handler configured with >> PerlOutputFilterHandler >> to return 'PerlOuputFilterHandler' for $r->current_callback, not >> 'PerlResponseHandler' which is clearly a different thing. >> >> but yes, I see your point that it's the response phase nonetheless. so, >> maybe either $r->current_callback is misnamed, or we should be returning, >> say, 'response' and 'translation' instead of 'PerlResponseHandler' and >> 'PerlTransHandler'? >> >> just an idea. > > > OK, may be $r->current_phase is more intuitive? which makes filters > different, since they aren't a phase. I'm not sure about the return > values: 'response' is good, but 'translation' is confusing to someone > who is used to 'Trans' in perl or 'trans' in C. Unless we want to come > up with our own mapping of C names to the long names.
trans or whatever is fine with me. > > and in addition may be $r->current_handler, to return the current > handler name? 'PerlOuputFilterHandler', 'PerlResponseHandler', etc.? well, if we can do that then I don't see any reason to not stay with current_callback() - it's familiar, and I do kinda like the notion that the callback name is equivalent to whatever directive you (typically) use to set the handler (set/push_handler calls aside). I did work on this a while ago but wasn't able to get it right - the async stuff with flushes made things flipflop between filter and content-handler rapidly. but it was a while ago - maybe looking at it again, having learned since then, will make it clearer now. --Geoff --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
