On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 03:42:42PM -0400, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Greg Stein wrote:
p.s. utter tripe indeed... that was rather inflammatory...
Sorry, but the whole thrust of your message seemed to be
'cleanups can't depend on diddly-squat'. I didn't say it
*was* tripe, just that
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 12:27:35PM -0700, Jon Travis wrote:
BZzzzt. The attached code registers a cleanup from within a cleanup, and
does so 'correctly'. See the program attached at the bottom, which behaves
incorrectly. It is simple code, but not knowing that a given
function registers a
From: Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 9:52 AM
On Tuesday 18 September 2001 06:09 pm, Greg Stein wrote:
I agree with OtherBill.
Cleanups are not always the answer. When they are run, many things
associated with that pool could be torn down already
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 01:52:12PM -0400, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Greg Stein wrote:
It isn't a bug. Cleanups are for just wrapping things up,
not doing work.
If that's the authoritative answer, then we need to provide
a supported way for 'doing work' at cleanup time.
You might
From: Greg Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 1:26 PM
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 01:52:12PM -0400, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Greg Stein wrote:
It isn't a bug. Cleanups are for just wrapping things up,
not doing work.
If that's the authoritative answer,
On Wednesday 19 September 2001 11:37 am, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
From: Greg Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 1:26 PM
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 01:52:12PM -0400, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Greg Stein wrote:
It isn't a bug. Cleanups are for just wrapping
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 12:16:24PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
On Wednesday 19 September 2001 11:37 am, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
From: Greg Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 1:26 PM
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 01:52:12PM -0400, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
On Wednesday 19 September 2001 12:27 pm, Jon Travis wrote:
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 12:16:24PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
On Wednesday 19 September 2001 11:37 am, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
From: Greg Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 1:26 PM
On Wed, Sep
Greg Stein wrote:
p.s. utter tripe indeed... that was rather inflammatory...
Sorry, but the whole thrust of your message seemed to be
'cleanups can't depend on diddly-squat'. I didn't say it
*was* tripe, just that it sounded like it. :-)
--
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 12:16:24PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
On Wednesday 19 September 2001 11:37 am, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
From: Greg Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 1:26 PM
...
The problem is cross-dependency between the cleanup actions. One can
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 03:52:21PM -0700, Jon Travis wrote:
I've got a bit of code that needs to run after a connection to a client
has been closed. Right now I can (kind of) spoof this by setting the
keepalive for the client to 0, and registering a cleanup on the
request_req pool.
Greg Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2) move the ap_lingering_close inside ap_process_connection, then call it
from with ap_process_connection. This *almost* works. All MPMs have a
call to ap_process_connection followed by a call to ap_lingering_close.
The only MPM that does other
On Tuesday 18 September 2001 02:10 am, Greg Stein wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 03:52:21PM -0700, Jon Travis wrote:
I've got a bit of code that needs to run after a connection to a client
has been closed. Right now I can (kind of) spoof this by setting the
keepalive for the client to 0,
On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote:
You've confused the issue with your subject line (everybody is bugging out
because they're relating it to logging). It should not have anything to do
with log. We have a pre-connection hook, so call yours post-connection.
That is when you want to
-
From: Jeff Trawick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 5:52 AM
Subject: Re: New post-log-transaction hook?
Greg Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2) move the ap_lingering_close inside ap_process_connection, then call it
from
On Tuesday 18 September 2001 08:17 am, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Why not let the MPM register the lingerclose with APR_HOOK_MIDDLE in the
post_connection hook? That way, if Jon's (or any other author's) intent is
to work before the lingering close, then it can be APR_HOOK_FIRST.
Otherwise
From: Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 11:44 AM
On Tuesday 18 September 2001 08:17 am, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Why not let the MPM register the lingerclose with APR_HOOK_MIDDLE in the
post_connection hook? That way, if Jon's (or any other author's) intent
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 02:20:35PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
From: Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 11:44 AM
On Tuesday 18 September 2001 08:17 am, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Why not let the MPM register the lingerclose with APR_HOOK_MIDDLE in
I've got a bit of code that needs to run after a connection to a client
has been closed. Right now I can (kind of) spoof this by setting the
keepalive for the client to 0, and registering a cleanup on the
request_req pool. Unfortunately the code in there is somewhat bulky,
so any subsequent
On Mon, 17 Sep 2001, Jon Travis wrote:
I've got a bit of code that needs to run after a connection to a client
has been closed. Right now I can (kind of) spoof this by setting the
keepalive for the client to 0, and registering a cleanup on the
request_req pool. Unfortunately the code in
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 07:01:21PM -0400, Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2001, Jon Travis wrote:
I've got a bit of code that needs to run after a connection to a client
has been closed. Right now I can (kind of) spoof this by setting the
keepalive for the client to 0, and
On Monday 17 September 2001 03:52 pm, Jon Travis wrote:
Why can't you do it in the log_transaction phase. Assuming this is
not a keepalive connection, the client will be gone by the time that
phase is run. If this is a keep-alive transaction, then you won't
save anything by adding another
PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Jon Travis
Subject: Re: New post-log-transaction hook?
On Monday 17 September 2001 03:52 pm, Jon Travis wrote:
Why can't you do it in the log_transaction phase. Assuming this is
not a keepalive connection, the client will be gone by the time that
phase is run
I tried setting keepalive == 0 in the handler, and doing my ju-ju in
the log_transaction phase. The client was still hanging around.
-- Jon
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 04:11:58PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
On Monday 17 September 2001 03:52 pm, Jon Travis wrote:
Why can't you do it in the
From: Jon Travis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 6:32 PM
I tried setting keepalive == 0 in the handler, and doing my ju-ju in
the log_transaction phase. The client was still hanging around.
That sounds right ... the lazy disconnect logic in httpd can leave a
connection
25 matches
Mail list logo
