Re: output handlers

To be honest, I was writing almost the same patch that you've posted, but I didn't finish the patch. Your patch is workable at this point, but if we remove (or stongly discourage) output_handler, we can forget about most of current and future issues. Imagine if there are 5, 10 or more bufferes that we should care buffer dependency, consistency, etc. Consistency detection code makes adding new internal buffer much difficult than it should be. If we have other ini directive and addtional feature to ini directive, it will encourage users to write non-portable scripts. Therefore, removing (or strongly discourage) use of output_handler is better than providing automatic detection. IMO Marcus Börger wrote:

At 11:13 06.08.2002, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:

Without output_handler, users are responsibe to make buffers consistent. There is a function to check buffer status/list for this purpose. We are unable to check user defined buffer consistency, anyway. How about remove the output_handler directive, instead? It's much simpler solution and encourage people to write a portable scripts.

But i know what you mean. I cannot say if i am really pro or agains removal. Most think against removal is that we would slow down many sites and perhaps we break some pages.

The impact of removal would be small. If user needs a output handler for all scripts, all they have to do is adding a line to a file always included, or create auto_prepend_file. We can also keep output_handler to keep compatibility by strongly discourage using it. Anyway, that's the reason why I commit only ob_get_status() You're not the only one who wrote patch that detects wrong buffer usage :) -- Yasuo Ohgaki