On Wed, 6 Feb 2002 11:22:23 -0500, "Brad Clements" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> >Also, RESPONSE.setBody really should have access to REQUEST.headers.
>> >What's the clean way to do that? Just pass the request object to response
>> >object's init method?
>>
>> RESPONSE objects have a REQUEST att
On 6 Feb 2002 at 10:40, Toby Dickenson wrote:
>
> I think you also need to check the accept-encoding header, to allow
> for clients that do not know how to gunzip. That also means you should set
> caching headers to prevent the compressed and uncompressed responses
> getting delivered to the wro
On 6 Feb 2002 at 10:02, seb bacon wrote:
> I don't have much useful to add - I just wanted to mention that I know
> there are people out there who have succesfully used mod_gzip with Zope;
> and that I *like* the name dogzip :-)
"That's my dog, zip!"
Brad Clements,[EMAIL PROTE
On Tue, 5 Feb 2002 17:34:26 -0500, "Brad Clements" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I hacked the attached code into HTTPResponse, at the end of setBody. It works for
>xml-rpc responses and I suppose any text output, so long as the response object has a
>header named "dogzip" set.
I think you also n
I don't have much useful to add - I just wanted to mention that I know
there are people out there who have succesfully used mod_gzip with Zope;
and that I *like* the name dogzip :-)
seb
On Tue, 2002-02-05 at 22:34, Brad Clements wrote:
> I'm looking for architectural suggestions for adding gzip
I have been working on a compression patch as a component of my PatchKit
product for some time now, but I have been hitting a few problems, and had
put it to one side while I worked on a couple of other products. If people
still want to see something like this, I can bring the code out of
moth-bal
