On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 10:55 AM Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group <ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com> wrote: > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> > > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. September 2018 10:37 > > An: httpd-dev <dev@httpd.apache.org> > > Betreff: Re: async mod_proxy_http > > > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 8:49 AM Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group > > <ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com> wrote: > > > > > > I don't like the "misuse" of c->aborted here. I for instance log in > > > the access log whether connections have been aborted or not and this > > > approach would mean that all proxied websocket connections would get > > > marked as aborted. Can't we use any other flag to tell the MPM to > > > close the socket and push the pool, e.g. a note in c->notes? > > > Why is the lingering close no longer needed? > > > > Agreed, let lingering close do its job if the client connection is not > > closed already. > > Better in v2 (attached)? > > Better. Should a module outside the core directly fiddle around with > the connection state in this case setting it to CONN_STATE_LINGER?
I'd said no... but for modules playing async with the MPM :p One way or another we need a flag which is meant for the MPM at resume_suspended time (be it the state, a c->notes, ...), and that hook is likely to be called by modules going async... Regards, Yann. > > > > > > Why now doing ap_mpm_resume_suspended after > > > ap_finalize_request_protocol(baton->r) and > > > ap_process_request_after_handler(baton->r)? > > > > I think we don't want EOS/EOR filtering race with the MPM on the > > connection... > > > > Fair enough. > > Regards > > Rüdiger >
