Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Errors-To: <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020418083031.01c1b738@localhost>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 08:31:02 -0500
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Maybe a fix for WSADuplicate failures?
In-Reply-To: <002c01c1e60e$a3ad2a90$42381b09@sashimi>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020417000420.01ea08d8@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 07:51 AM 4/17/2002, Bill Stoddard wrote:
>I have my doubts about this but I don't have a better suggestion... If you 
>have tested
>this on Win2k/NT, lets give it a shot...

Well... early reports indicate some success.  Go figure.  I'll continue to 
watch for
feedback from testers.


> > I was reading this error from the umpteenth news poster about 2.0.35 
> Win2000
> > failure...
> >
> > I have the same problem in installing Apache 2.0.35 on WIndows XP:
> > [Tue Apr 16 20:39:08 2002] [notice] Parent: Created child process 2628
> > [Tue Apr 16 20:39:08 2002] [notice] Child 2628: Child process is
> > running
> > [Tue Apr 16 20:39:09 2002] [crit] (32538)An operation was attempted on
> > something that is not a socket.  : Parent: WSADuplicateSocket failed
> > for socket 3308280.
> > Check the FAQ.
> >
> > It occured to me that maybe - if we maintain the handle identity - it might
> > overcome the "Not a socket" error.
> >
> > Attached is a patch that doesn't change the socket HANDLE.  Any
> > objections to at least attempting this?
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> >