From: "Greg Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 11:14 PM
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 03:39:47PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > On Friday 05 October 2001 03:34 pm, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> >
> > > And the more that I look at this, the more we need a push-back model,
> > >
On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 03:39:47PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> On Friday 05 October 2001 03:34 pm, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
> > Now PLEASE understand that maxbytes 0 (originally, the -1 idea) doesn't
> > say 'read everything from this socket' --- it leaves the best-fit for
> > the underlying
From: "Justin Erenkrantz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 7:47 PM
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 05:34:41PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > Aaron and I were chatting about this in stream-of-consiouness mode,
> > let me boil down our collective lightbulb.
>
> The more, the m
On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 05:34:41PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Aaron and I were chatting about this in stream-of-consiouness mode,
> let me boil down our collective lightbulb.
The more, the merrier. =) If you could pass a few lightbulbs down
here, I'd appreciate it...
> We actually ha
On Friday 05 October 2001 03:34 pm, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> From: "Justin Erenkrantz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 4:50 AM
> Now PLEASE understand that maxbytes 0 (originally, the -1 idea) doesn't
> say 'read everything from this socket' --- it leaves the best-fit fo
From: "Justin Erenkrantz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 4:50 AM
> Ideally, we almost need another mode type that says, "I want you to
> block until the first packet received and then return that to me."
> This is along the lines of what Madhu was talking about earlier.
> An
Well, it mostly works. It isn't perfect and some cases aren't
being handled. However, I'm not sure how much time I'm going
to have today to work on it. So, I'll post what I have to the
list and see what you all think.
I think churn_input is mostly working - most of the problems
are with ssl_
On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 08:12:42PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 09:09:46PM -0400, MATHIHALLI,MADHUSUDAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1)
>wrote:
>...
> > 'not necessarily. The renegotiation request can come from the
> > ssl_hook_Access() also - in which case ssl_hook_process_connec
On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 10:30:08PM -0700, Greg Stein wrote:
> *tempread ?? You might want to assign something to tempread first :-)
Yeah, I caught that one already. =)
> >...
> > +pos = memchr(str, APR_ASCII_LF, len);
>
> How about a new brigade function first?
Okay
> I don't kno
On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 01:03:32PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>...
> --- modules/ssl/ssl_engine_io.c 2001/10/04 17:50:39 1.37
> +++ modules/ssl/ssl_engine_io.c 2001/10/04 19:54:22
>...
> static apr_status_t ssl_io_filter_Input(ap_filter_t *f,
>
On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 09:09:46PM -0400, MATHIHALLI,MADHUSUDAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1)
wrote:
> HTTP filters.. But, I have some concerns :
> Some applications may legitimately ask for x bytes, some may ask for a upper
> limit of x bytes, and some other may want to have all the data in the
> channel
On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 09:09:46PM -0400, MATHIHALLI,MADHUSUDAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1)
wrote:
> I'm always of the opinion that bailing out is a correct way to go. It's
> possible that the ssl_io_hook_read be registered directly with (Open)SSL to
> perform the read/write operations - in which case, ba
-Original Message-
From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 4:51 PM
[snip]
> -if (ssl == NULL) {
> -return -1;
> -}
> -
> => Why is the checking not required ?.. If it's justified, then the
> corresponding check has to be eliminate
On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 05:12:10PM -0400, MATHIHALLI,MADHUSUDAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1)
wrote:
[ Have a few minutes before class starts... ]
> -if (ssl == NULL) {
> -return -1;
> -}
> -
> [snip]
>
>
> => Why is the checking not required ?.. If it's justified, then the
> correspondi
Hi,
Pl. find my comments below :
[snip]
Index: modules/ssl/ssl_engine_io.c
===
RCS file: /home/cvs/httpd-2.0/modules/ssl/ssl_engine_io.c,v
retrieving revision 1.37
diff -u -r1.37 ssl_engine_io.c
--- modules/ssl/ssl_engine_io.
I have to get to class now.
This is within shouting distance of where we need to be.
It compiles. =) Yet another gnarly patch. Oh, well.
I also moved some code from mod_ssl.c that dealt with buckets into
ssl_engine_io.c. That seems logical to do though.
Oh, when we enter churn with data
16 matches
Mail list logo
