At 20:07 14/1/2001, Jim Studt wrote:
>Zeev Suraski wrote...
> > I haven't looked into this patch, but can't this be done using the chunked
> > output buffering support? A 4KB buffer should be much more efficient than
> > compressing each and every separate piece of output... The chunked output
>
Zeev Suraski wrote...
> I haven't looked into this patch, but can't this be done using the chunked
> output buffering support? A 4KB buffer should be much more efficient than
> compressing each and every separate piece of output... The chunked output
> buffering support made it into 4.0.4, al
I haven't looked into this patch, but can't this be done using the chunked
output buffering support? A 4KB buffer should be much more efficient than
compressing each and every separate piece of output... The chunked output
buffering support made it into 4.0.4, although it's untested, and
ob_
You might hold off on applying the patch. There is an NT porter fixing
up my various NT transgressions. (Mostly related to global variable
prepration.)
I will repost it after it clears NT.
--
Jim Studt, President
The Fe
Sean R. Bright points out the painfully obvious...
> Check your patch, I think you might have posted a reverse patch. Lots of
> "-"s and one or two "+"s.
Yep. I botched it. It is a shameful reversed diff patch.
Here it is in its unreversed form...
--
Jim
