Re: sed filter module

2007-03-14 Thread Frank
Just wanted to add my two cents worth... We are using mod_line_edit a lot and would like to see a similar functionality coming with Apache by default. :-) When I am correct mod_line_edit has the 'wrong' license model for being included into Apache by default. Just for your infomation:

Re: sed filter module

2007-03-14 Thread Nick Kew
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:07:49 +0100 Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just wanted to add my two cents worth... We are using mod_line_edit a lot and would like to see a similar functionality coming with Apache by default. :-) Sounds like a vote. When I am correct mod_line_edit has the 'wrong'

Re: sed filter module

2007-03-14 Thread Jim Jagielski
On Mar 14, 2007, at 5:07 AM, Frank wrote: RewriteBodyLine 'http://(.*?)/(.*)/(.*)' 'http://${LOWERCASE:$1}/$ {MD5:$2}/$3' Yeah, that would be useful... Of course, the main issue is that whereas mod_rewrite can afford to be dog slow, because, after all, the URLs aren't *that* big,

Re: sed filter module

2007-03-14 Thread Nick Kew
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 09:25:11 -0400 Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 14, 2007, at 5:07 AM, Frank wrote: RewriteBodyLine 'http://(.*?)/(.*)/(.*)' 'http://${LOWERCASE:$1}/$ {MD5:$2}/$3' Yeah, that would be useful... Of course, the main issue is that whereas mod_rewrite

Re: sed filter module

2007-03-14 Thread Nick Kew
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:45:47 + Nick Kew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As for the particular case Frank asked for, that works by expanding the union to include a function pointer alongside the strmatch and regexp cases. So it's also a per-rule configuration flag, and never touches the code

Re: sed filter module

2007-03-14 Thread Joe Orton
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 09:24:25AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: There have been times when having a simple sed filter in Apache would be useful... I used to use just ext_filter to do this, but this got more and more painful the more I used it. So awhile ago I made mod_sed_filter which I find

Re: sed filter module

2007-03-14 Thread Nick Kew
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:32:13 + Joe Orton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) the filtering logic is broken and will consume RAM proportional to response size. I must've missed that when I looked. I thought it used the same logic as mod_line_edit, which is very careful about that. Oh, I guess

Re: sed filter module

2007-03-14 Thread Jim Jagielski
On Mar 14, 2007, at 11:01 AM, Nick Kew wrote: Oh, I guess you mean the copying to get a null-terminated string when applying a regexp? And I see it's repeated for every regexp (ouch)! mod_line_edit uses a local pool which is cleared at the end of each brigade, and avoids multiple copies of

Re: sed filter module

2007-03-14 Thread Joe Orton
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 03:01:53PM +, Nick Kew wrote: On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:32:13 + Joe Orton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) the filtering logic is broken and will consume RAM proportional to response size. I must've missed that when I looked. I thought it used the same logic

Re: sed filter module

2007-03-14 Thread Nick Kew
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:27:44 + Joe Orton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 03:01:53PM +, Nick Kew wrote: On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:32:13 + Joe Orton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) the filtering logic is broken and will consume RAM proportional to response size.

Re: sed filter module

2007-03-14 Thread Nick Kew
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:15:00 -0400 Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 14, 2007, at 11:01 AM, Nick Kew wrote: Oh, I guess you mean the copying to get a null-terminated string when applying a regexp? And I see it's repeated for every regexp (ouch)! mod_line_edit uses a local

Re: sed filter module

2007-03-14 Thread Joe Orton
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 03:45:05PM +, Nick Kew wrote: Nope. Just one brigades worth at a time. And the most likely case for that to be an entire document is when it's a static file, and document == brigade == bucket. I'm not sure what you're saying here. Which do you agree with: a)

Re: sed filter module

2007-03-14 Thread Nick Kew
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:56:41 + Joe Orton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 03:45:05PM +, Nick Kew wrote: Nope. Just one brigades worth at a time. And the most likely case for that to be an entire document is when it's a static file, and document == brigade ==

Re: sed filter module

2007-03-14 Thread Justin Erenkrantz
On 3/14/07, Nick Kew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: to content size? Other than when the entire contents arrive in a single bucket? Uh, a file bucket? -- justin

Re: sed filter module

2007-03-14 Thread Jim Jagielski
As a rough proof of concept, I refactored the design, allowing for the pattern matching and substitution to be done as soon as we have a line. Also is some rough ability to pass the data to the next filter after we get more than ~AP_MIN_BYTES_TO_WRITE bytes. Doesn't alleviate all the problems,

Re: sed filter module

2007-03-14 Thread Joe Orton
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 06:38:48PM +, Nick Kew wrote: Now, what leads you to suppose mod_line_edit uses RAM proportional to content size? Other than when the entire contents arrive in a single bucket? Because it implements the naive filter implementation, equivalent to: e =

Re: sed filter module

2007-03-13 Thread Nick Kew
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 09:24:25 -0400 Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://people.apache.org/~jim/code/mod_sed_filter.c At a glance, it looks like mod_line_edit. Are you doing anything different? -- Nick Kew Application Development with Apache - the Apache Modules Book

Re: sed filter module

2007-03-13 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
Jim Jagielski wrote: Anyone mind if I fold it into trunk and maybe have us consider making it part of 2.2 (even under experimental)? +1 to trunk! No opinion yet on 2.2 (I'm not a big fan of growing the stable branch since it entirely defeats the drive to release 2.next, ever.) No docs yet

Re: sed filter module

2007-03-13 Thread Jim Jagielski
On Mar 13, 2007, at 1:10 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Is this sed or pcre syntax? I'm a bit confused :) It's a mutant ;) But, of course, we maintain that confusion internally with regex's being pcre... Although it's sed-ish, is it misleading to confuse the user with the phrase sed

Re: sed filter module

2007-03-13 Thread Nick Kew
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:34:07 -0400 Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 13, 2007, at 1:10 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Is this sed or pcre syntax? I'm a bit confused :) It's a mutant ;) But, of course, we maintain that confusion internally with regex's being pcre...

Re: sed filter module

2007-03-13 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
Nick Kew wrote: I'm even more confused now, because I thought you were with Covalent, and I understood from Will that mod_line_edit was widely used by clients of Covalent. Please tell me what I'm missing? Just to ensure I'm not misquoted, I know I've suggested mod_line_edit to a few

Re: sed filter module

2007-03-13 Thread Jim Jagielski
On Mar 13, 2007, at 2:08 PM, Nick Kew wrote: AFAICS, this not merely looks like mod_line_edit: the filter *is* mod_line_edit, right down to the bucket manipulation logic used as an example in The Book! It's just missing a couple of minor features, and has a slightly different configuration

Re: sed filter module

2007-03-13 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
Jim Jagielski wrote: Bill told me about mod_line_edit maybe 3-4 days ago. I had known about mod_proxy_html, which is also something we've pointed clients to, so maybe that's where the confusion comes from. Good point - in my experience mod_proxy_html is much more broadly adopted both by our

Re: sed filter module

2007-03-13 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
Jim Jagielski wrote: On Mar 13, 2007, at 1:10 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Is this sed or pcre syntax? I'm a bit confused :) It's a mutant ;) But, of course, we maintain that confusion internally with regex's being pcre... Of course :) But it appears to be a tiny fraction of the

Re: sed filter module

2007-03-13 Thread Jim Jagielski
On Mar 13, 2007, at 3:34 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Jim Jagielski wrote: On Mar 13, 2007, at 1:10 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Is this sed or pcre syntax? I'm a bit confused :) It's a mutant ;) But, of course, we maintain that confusion internally with regex's being pcre...