> > > 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?
That depends. Was this a sub-request? If so, then when the
sub_req_output_filter was called, it would have converted the mmap bucket
into a heap bucket. If this wasn't a sub-request, then you don't really
have a problem. The only time this should still be a problem, is if the
file is >9k, and for some reason we didn't stream it. I can't think of
when that would happen though.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
