On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 14:08 -0400, Helmut K. C. Tessarek wrote: > One of the comments on the documentation page of mod_proxy_fcgi > (http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/mod/mod_proxy_fcgi.html) mentions an > issue with flush: > > There is just no flush support it seems. I attempt to use PHP flush() > and it won't work until you fill up a buffer first, rendering Server > Sent Events impossible with proxy_fcgi.
Do we have any idea what (if anything) proxy_fcgi receives from a PHP flush()? Your fix could be as simple as propagating an event. > > In a perfect world, I'm right there with you, but we've seen (as long as > > technology has existed) that people twist the way how technology is > > applied and used. It's hard to convince those people otherwise, > > especially when most of the time it has been possible to get it to work That takes me back ... https://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/24/everything_over_http/ > > > It probably makes sense to work on a nonblocking architecture for > > > proxied responses in general. Is that really the issue in the first place? We have a concept of flushing, and can implement more finely-tuned throughput than merely blocking vs non-blocking. The point at issue is for PHP to communicate a flush with proxy_fcgi, and for proxy_fcgi then to honour it. It seems one or both of those things isn't happening. > > I'm not familiar with that particular code, but would be interested in > > looking into it. Does anybody volunteer as a mentor? Best mentor is this list. Or #httpd-dev on Freenode (IRC), if someone's paying attention there. > lookup https://sks-keyservers.net/i for KeyID 0xC11F128D Please update that: it's too easy to spoof. See https://evil32.com/ , or my blog article at https://bahumbug.wordpress.com/2017/04/27/pretty-good-phishing/ -- Nick Kew
