<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > ok thats sounds fair..
> >
> > the only problem i can see is that most bucket types don't implement the setaside
>function
> > is implementing the setaside (with a pool) going to fix the mod_include problem of
>not
> > having the buckets passed back?
>
> Greg's idea requires that more buckets implement the setaside function.
> The other idea of just having the sub_request_filter handle the problem
> doesn't have that requirement.
Note that with a simple situation I just recreated, the mmap bucket
for a small file is being held by the content-length filter (it did
ap_save_brigade).
I'm confused... What would ap_sub_req_output_filter() be able to do
to help?
[I haven't verified but hopefully] f->r for the content length filter
is the main request and not the subrequest. If it passed f->r->pool
to ap_save_brigade() which passed it on to setaside which decided that
the mmap was in the wrong pool then magic can possibly happen.
--
Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PGP public key at web site:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
