Sorry, the fix was against the develop branch. Also, I am checking with a 
simple telnet.



>________________________________
> From: Adrian Muraru <[email protected]>
>To: [email protected] 
>Sent: Friday, January 4, 2013 5:16 PM
>Subject: [mongrel2] Closing Connections with empty message
> 
>
>Hi Matt,
>
>
>I admit I do not have much experience with this code, but I think this can be 
>corrected by replacing the following in handler_process_request in 
>src/handler.c
>>
>>Connection_deliver_raw(conn, NULL);
>>
>>with:
>>
>>Connection_deliver_enqueue(conn, NULL, NULL)
>
>
>Not sure where you're checking but Connection_deliver_enqueue fn takes only 
>two parameters:
>https://github.com/zedshaw/mongrel2/blob/v1.8.0/src/connection.c#L86
>
>
>How are you testing the keep-alive connections?
>
>
>curl -I -v http://mongrel.host
>Should display something about keeping connection around if keep alive is 
>requested or closing it otherwise
>
>
>.a
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On 31 December 2012 19:33, Matthew Hawn <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>I am working an a python handler for mongrel2 and have run into a problem. It 
>seems that Mongrel2 is not closing connections when sent an empty message.  
>From what I can tell, handler_process_request used to call Request_disconnect. 
>This was apparently moved so that the connection wasn't closed while there 
>still was data in the queue.  Unfortunately, the dequeue side doesn't seem to 
>catch the sentinel of a NULL string and in fact raises a spurious error.  
>>
>>
>>I admit I do not have much experience with this code, but I think this can be 
>>corrected by replacing the following in handler_process_request in 
>>src/handler.c
>>
>>Connection_deliver_raw(conn, NULL);
>>
>>with:
>>
>>Connection_deliver_enqueue(conn, NULL, NULL)
>
>
>https://github.com/zedshaw/mongrel2/blob/v1.8.0/src/connection.c#L86
> 
>
>>
>>Also, it would be nice if the fix for this can be incorporated into the 1.8 
>>release as a hotfix since this severely affects my handler, and other 
>>handlers as well.
>>
>>
>>Matt Hawn
>>
>>
>
>
>

Reply via email to