I assume that most filters that buffer data or have other saved state
across invocations stash it off of f-ctx. If that exists, you know
there is a possibility of corrupting the data stream if you remove the
filter.
Wouldn't this be better done in remove_any_filter rather than by the
-Original Message-
From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
Do not attempt to
remove a filter once it's inserted, simple force it to be
inert. Serveral Apache filters already do this, although I
can't name one offhand (SSL might be, I think.)
Perhaps I am just
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 03:17 PM 10/20/2003, Aryeh Katz wrote:
I have an input filter that might need to reinvoke the handler that inserted this
input filter (this time with the filter removed).
Do not attempt to remove a filter once it's inserted, simple force it to be inert.
hmmm?
At 06:06 AM 10/21/2003, Tikka, Sami wrote:
-Original Message-
From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
Do not attempt to
remove a filter once it's inserted, simple force it to be
inert. Serveral Apache filters already do this, although I
can't name one
At 09:51 AM 10/21/2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 03:17 PM 10/20/2003, Aryeh Katz wrote:
I have an input filter that might need to reinvoke the handler that inserted this
input filter (this time with the filter removed).
Do not attempt to remove a filter once it's
At 12:45 PM 10/21/2003, André Malo wrote:
* William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Answer, the byterange filter removes itself. It *knows* there are no partially
processed buckets that it is holding on to. Nobody else is allowed to add
or remove a filter - but the filter may remove
Ahhh. Now look at the code below. WHO removes the byterange filter?
Answer, the byterange filter removes itself.
That's perfectly clear, and it's common practice. I (and evidently
others) read your previous post as disallowing that, causing a
raised eyebrow.
It *knows* there are
At 03:43 PM 10/21/2003, Nick Kew wrote:
Ahhh. Now look at the code below. WHO removes the byterange filter?
Answer, the byterange filter removes itself.
That's perfectly clear, and it's common practice. I (and evidently
others) read your previous post as disallowing that, causing a
raised
At 03:17 PM 10/20/2003, Aryeh Katz wrote:
I have an input filter that might need to reinvoke the handler that inserted this
input filter (this time with the filter removed).
The right way to do that is to store a per-request apr_pool_data holder
for the request. Do not attempt to remove a
