httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: more lingering_close...
Date Sun, 09 Feb 1997 21:06:27 GMT
Ben Laurie wrote:
> 
> Hang on. I understood up to this point (finally), but surely this is wrong?
> If the server isn't doing an l_c(), then it won't have half-closed at this
> point, it will have full-closed, and hence the RST's are exactly what is
> expected. In this case, we should definitely half-close (which is surely the
> point of l_c()?), or wait for the client to complete their send (which may be
> lame - but since the spec doesn't give us a slot at this point in the protocol
> to say "OK" or "Oops", we shouldn't really be talking or closing connections
> yet).
> 

The problem that I see with waiting until the send is completed is
that it's either all or nothing... We must continue to wait until
we rec the AllClear from the client. If we have a timeout then we
are once again in the position where we close the link before
the "client is ready"; if we continue to wait, then for slow clients
or, even worse, clients that just hang there and never finish, we
tie up a process and never close the link. Even SO_LINGER in the
socket layer waits a certain amount of time (or, well, it _should_
wait).
-- 
====================================================================
      Jim Jagielski            |       jaguNET Access Services
     jim@jaguNET.com           |       http://www.jaguNET.com/
                  "Not the Craw... the CRAW!"

Mime
View raw message