> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian Gilmore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 12:34 PM
> To: Modperl Mailing List (E-mail)
> Subject: lookup_uri() / lookup_file() behavior
>
>
> I'm trying to determine what the proper behavior for lookup_uri() /
> lookup_file() should be. This call creates a subrequest that
> appears as if
> it is a new one up until the content handler phase. From the
> eagle book,
> pages 452-3:
>
> lookup_file() and lookup_uri() invoke Apache
> subrequests. A subrequest is treated exactly
> like an ordinary request, except that the post
> read request ... [is] not run... lookup_uri()
> performs the URI translation on the provided
> URI, passing the request to the access control
> and authorization handlers, if any...
>
> Should the subrequest have the same stack of handlers and
> environment with
> which the parent request began or should it have the same stack and
> environment at the time the parent request launched the subrequest?
>
> From my readings of the Modules eagle book (such as pages
> 62-3 and 452-3)
> and the Apache eagle book (such as page 271) and my own
> common sense, I'd
> say it should be the former (same as the beginning of the
> parent). What
> would you say?
sounds right - if you're wondering whether using push/set_handlers() would
apply to a subrequest, I would think not. each request has it's own request
object and associated parameters (such as $r->uri, etc...), so it makes
sense to me that the phase handlers would not be inherited, especially since
the uri could be to a different <Location> which could have it's own set of
handlers. but making sense to me is certainly far from gospel...
and anyway, I tried a test case and couldn't get a pushed fixup handler to
register with the subrequest :)
HTH
--Geoff
>
> Regards,
> Christian
>
> -----------------
> Christian Gilmore
> Infrastructure & Tools Team Lead
> Web & Multimedia Development
> Tivoli Systems, Inc.
>
