httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Randy Terbush <ra...@zyzzyva.com>
Subject Re: SET_BYTES_SENT (problem with run_sub_req())
Date Thu, 27 Jun 1996 00:50:07 GMT
>   > I think he's calling run_sub_req() himself, on the main request_rec, with
>   > some modified members.
> 
>   Yes. Setting r->handler and then calling run_sub_req(r).
> 
> I take it this is in a response phase handler.  Why not just set
> r->handler in a fixup?  (That's what fixups are there for).
> 
>   > Random thought:
>   > 
>   > r->main = r;
> 
>   This is my question. Do we do this in run_sub_req, or should this
>   be done in invoke_handler?
> 
> Wherever you do it, you'll cause anything which tries to find the
> main request corresponding to a given request_rec (e.g. timeout
> handlers) to go into an infinite loop.  Not a good idea.
> 
> I'm not sure it's really appropriate to be calling run_sub_req at
> all in these circumstances... it really is meant for sub_requests
> *only*.  
> 
> rst

Ok. That brings us to the second part of my question.

Can we move the prototype for invoke_handler() outside of
the CORE_PRIVATE macro?






Mime
View raw message