Hi, Alexander. Do you talk about calls from different boxes? It is quite simple to modify http library to do so. 1. Inject additional arg into http_start_request() (rewrite current calls to use NULL for this arg) 2. Add to structure HTTPserver field octstr *outgoing_interface. 3. In get_connection() use http_interface only if *outgoing_interface not NULL.
If you think it is useful, I can do it. But anyway, for using it, corresponded boxes must be tuned to use http_start_request with real interface, not NULL.
Alexander Malysh wrote: > On Thursday 18 December 2003 13:22, Vjacheslav Chekushin wrote: > >>Hi, Alexandr. >>I didn't get your point. How do you want to choose with >>each interface to call http_start_request? Is it just round-robin? > > > nope, it would be specified explicitely, i.e. > http_start_request(...params..., interface) > > >>I can show you why I using this patch (simplified): >>My host has 2 interfaces - into intranet and into internet. >>What I want is to allow wap user go to internet only. >>So I bind http requests to external interface and that is all. >>Requests can't go to intranet now. > > > ok, I got your point... But assume you would like additionaly to allow for > some user requests to go into intranet (password/username/msidn protected), > then you have no chance todo that on this wapbox because all http request > would go through internet interface. > > >>Alexander Malysh wrote: >> >>>Hi Slava, >>> >>>just a question: your patch sets http-interface static for the whole >>>process (http-interface). Would it make sense to set 'interface' for each >>>http request (i.e. by calling http_start_request with wished interface) ? >>> >>>e.g. one application with 2 threads: first thread starts http request >>>through eth0 and second thread through eth1. such is impossible with >>>attached patch or I'm missing something? >>> >>>On Thursday 18 December 2003 09:13, Vjacheslav Chekushin wrote: >>> >>>>Hi, Alexander. >>>> >>>>I've included update to userguide. >>>>Could you check, is it enough? >>>> >>>>Alexander Malysh wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Tuesday 16 December 2003 13:53, Vjacheslav Chekushin wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Hi, Alexander. >>>>>> >>>>>>The problem is that I haven't write access to CVS ;). >>>>> >>>>>oops, I thought you have write access... >>>>>would you please add new option to userguide and resend a whole patch. I >>>>>will commit it then. >>>>> >>>>>Thanks in advance... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Alexander Malysh wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Hi Slava, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>as a known open-source-process , no votes/comments are equal to +0 , >>>>>>>so you as a one that have write access should just commit things, >>>>>>>because some time for review by others elapsed and no vetos are >>>>>>>there. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Only one comment from me: I'm +1 for this patch , but please add this >>>>>>>new config option to userguide. We _must_ keep userguide uptodate. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>On Tuesday 16 December 2003 13:00, Vjacheslav Chekushin wrote: >>>>>> >
-- Vjacheslav Chekushin mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Latvian Mobile Phone Company http://www.lmt.lv Network Support and Information Technology Group +371 7773436 +371 9248284 (mobile) -- Vjacheslav Chekushin mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Latvian Mobile Phone Company http://www.lmt.lv Network Support and Information Technology Group +371 7773436 +371 9248284 (mobile)
