https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63626
--- Comment #18 from Michael Osipov ---
Created attachment 37139
--> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37139=edit
Patch for trunk
Rüdiger,
here they are. Both are very different because ap_proxy_backend_broke() is not
used
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63626
Michael Osipov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #36700|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63626
Michael Osipov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #37137|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63626
--- Comment #15 from Ruediger Pluem ---
(In reply to Michael Osipov from comment #14)
> (In reply to Ruediger Pluem from comment #13)
>
> Reread and understand your reasoning. I think you have a typo:
> > This allows to sent non idempotent
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63626
--- Comment #14 from Michael Osipov ---
(In reply to Ruediger Pluem from comment #13)
> (In reply to Michael Osipov from comment #12)
> >
> > Sorry for responding so late. I agree, this should be generalized. Patch has
> > been updated.
>
>
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63626
--- Comment #13 from Ruediger Pluem ---
(In reply to Michael Osipov from comment #12)
>
> Sorry for responding so late. I agree, this should be generalized. Patch has
> been updated.
Some comments:
1. The patch seems to be against 2.4.x. We
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63626
--- Comment #12 from Michael Osipov ---
(In reply to Yann Ylavic from comment #10)
> Comment on attachment 36700 [details]
> Patch for timeouts
>
> From your patch..
>
> >diff --git a/modules/proxy/mod_proxy_http.c
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63626
--- Comment #11 from Michael Osipov ---
Created attachment 36974
--> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36974=edit
Patch for timeouts
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63626
--- Comment #10 from Yann Ylavic ---
Comment on attachment 36700
--> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36700
Patch for timeouts
>From your patch..
>diff --git a/modules/proxy/mod_proxy_http.c b/modules/proxy/mod_proxy_http.c
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63626
--- Comment #9 from Yann Ylavic ---
>From an administrator POV, I agree that having a separate logno/message for the
100-continue timeout case makes sense, but it seems to be the case already no?
In the error_log ISTM that first AH01102
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63626
--- Comment #8 from Michael Osipov ---
(In reply to Yann Ylavic from comment #6)
> AIUI, the purpose of the 100-continue mechanism is to ping the service, as
> opposed to ping the (TCP-)connection.
> In this case the client sent the HTTP
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63626
--- Comment #7 from Yann Ylavic ---
Also note that the timeout can be reduced in this case, using mod_proxy's ping=
parameter.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63626
--- Comment #6 from Yann Ylavic ---
AIUI, the purpose of the 100-continue mechanism is to ping the service, as
opposed to ping the (TCP-)connection.
In this case the client sent the HTTP header with "Expect: 100-continue",
mod_proxy_http
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63626
--- Comment #5 from Michael Osipov ---
I do not understand your explanation. The difference between service unailable
and timeout is that service unavailable says connect() did not work which the
latter fails on read().
In that particular
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63626
--- Comment #4 from Ruediger Pluem ---
(In reply to Michael Osipov from comment #3)
> My initial problem is described in
> https://www.mail-archive.com/users@tomcat.apache.org/msg132332.html.
>
> I will try to summarize:
>
> HTTPd responded
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63626
--- Comment #3 from Michael Osipov ---
My initial problem is described in
https://www.mail-archive.com/users@tomcat.apache.org/msg132332.html.
I will try to summarize:
HTTPd responded HTTP_SERVICE_UNAVAILABLE, Tomcat did not respond it time,
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63626
--- Comment #2 from Graham Leggett ---
This was the thread that resulted when the backport was proposed:
https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/201305.mbox/%3c518a0304.9050...@apache.org%3e
It got bogged down in what the effect
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63626
--- Comment #1 from Michael Osipov ---
The change is also available at:
https://github.com/michael-o/httpd/tree/BZ-63626/2.4.x
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63626
Michael Osipov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||micha...@apache.org,
19 matches
Mail list logo
