Re: Re: output buffering

At 10:55 07/10/2002, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:

As I said before, I don't touch any of chunk size related code. You've removed all applicable lines regarding to implicit flush thing.

No implicit flush please. Enough. It's over. Seriously, please, it's really getting on my nerves already :) [*]

Anyway, using unlimited size of buffer makes sense to me. Unless it buffers whole contents, URL rewriter may fail to modify HTML correctly. I don't read code, so I cannot make comment on this. But, I guess it is working as before w/o adding output control functions.

Well, you should have at least assumed that considering it's been working with chunked buffering for months and months, maybe, just possibly, it's supposed to work that way. The least you should do is ask either Sascha or me how come it uses chunked buffering, and whether it's not a bug. You would have gotten a pretty clear response saying that it fully supports chunked buffering. Zeev [*] The reason I'm edgy is that on top of the public discussion about implicit flush, there was also a fairly long email exchange between Yasuo and me regarding that subject...