Why not let the MPM register the lingerclose with APR_HOOK_MIDDLE in the
post_connection hook? That way, if Jon's (or any other author's) intent is
to work before the lingering close, then it can be APR_HOOK_FIRST. Otherwise
register it APR_HOOK_LAST.
Problem solved?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Trawick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 5:52 AM
Subject: Re: New post-log-transaction hook?
> Greg Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 2) move the ap_lingering_close inside ap_process_connection, then call it
> > from with ap_process_connection. This *almost* works. All MPMs have a
> > call to ap_process_connection followed by a call to ap_lingering_close.
> > The only MPM that does other funny stuff in there is the winnt MPM.
> > Conceivably, you could pass a flag that says "I'll manage the shutdown,
> > thankyouvermuch", and winnt would do its close followed by the
> > post-connection hook.
>
> It is nice for ap_lingering_close() to be handled in the MPM. It
> shouldn't be too hard for the MPM to implement its own lingering close
> in a manner that doesn't consume one thread per closing connection
> (e.g., dedicate one thread per MPM to do all the lingering close
> logic). Of course there could always be another hook :)
>
> --
> Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PGP public key at web site:
> http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/
> Born in Roswell... married an alien...
>
