"Roy T. Fielding" wrote:
>
> I think that anyone using "tripe" in an analogy should be
> forced to eat it.
Don't go there, Roy, or someone is sure to apply it to
'bullsh*t' as well.. :-D
--
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist
> Exactly, the client is still connected, but by this time, the client should have
> received all of the data. The only thing we have is a connection that will be
> left open until both sides get around to closing it. If a non-keepalive request
> is still receiving data after the log-transaction
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,
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 register
On Wednesday 19 September 2001 02:21 pm, Greg Stein 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
> > > Rea
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
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 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 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 w
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
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 authorit
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.
>
> >
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 not even be able to open and use that file if
> your pool is n the process
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:17:36AM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> 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 answ
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 al
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 because their cleanups
> have already run.
>
> If you need a known state to perform *oper
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 06:52:35AM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> 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
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 because their cleanups
have already run.
If you need a known state to perform *operations* (as it sounds like Jon is
doing), then you can't use a cleanu
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_
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
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.
> Otherw
On Tuesday 18 September 2001 08:19 am, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> 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-con
al Message -
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
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 w
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
On Monday 17 September 2001 09:33 pm, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> 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.
>
>
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 ot
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. Unfo
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
connect
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 log
September 17, 2001 4:12 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 ti
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 phase
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 re
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
34 matches
Mail list logo
