Re: async mod_proxy_http
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 10:55 AM Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Yann Ylavic <ylavic.dev@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. September 2018 10:37
> > An: httpd-dev <dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Betreff: Re: async mod_proxy_http
> > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 8:49 AM Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group
> > <ruediger.pluem@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't like the "misuse" of c->aborted here. I for instance log in
> > > the access log whether connections have been aborted or not and this
> > > approach would mean that all proxied websocket connections would get
> > > marked as aborted. Can't we use any other flag to tell the MPM to
> > > close the socket and push the pool, e.g. a note in c->notes?
> > > Why is the lingering close no longer needed?
> > Agreed, let lingering close do its job if the client connection is not
> > closed already.
> > Better in v2 (attached)?
> Better. Should a module outside the core directly fiddle around with
> the connection state in this case setting it to CONN_STATE_LINGER?
I'd said no... but for modules playing async with the MPM :p
One way or another we need a flag which is meant for the MPM at
resume_suspended time (be it the state, a c->notes, ...), and that
hook is likely to be called by modules going async...
> > > Why now doing ap_mpm_resume_suspended after
> > > ap_finalize_request_protocol(baton->r) and
> > > ap_process_request_after_handler(baton->r)?
> > I think we don't want EOS/EOR filtering race with the MPM on the
> > connection...
> Fair enough.