Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 16:14:00 -0700
From: Justin Erenkrantz <jerenkrantz@apache.org>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org, dev@subversion.tigris.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] httpd discards body too soon
Message-ID: <20020625161400.D2953@apache.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Justin Erenkrantz <jerenkrantz@apache.org>,
	dev@httpd.apache.org, dev@subversion.tigris.org
References: <200206252027.g5PKRPO92976@newton.ch.collab.net>
 <20020625144939.A2953@apache.org> <858z533u45.fsf@newton.ch.collab.net>
 <20020625152128.C2953@apache.org> <20020625155551.Q19115@lyra.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <20020625155551.Q19115@lyra.org>;
 from gstein@lyra.org on Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 03:55:52PM -0700

On Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 03:55:52PM -0700, Greg Stein wrote:
> What do you think of the tri-state solution?
> 
> It *does* mean that we might discard a body, but then later find out we
> didn't need to. However, it would remove an accidental non-discard.

That'd work. I believe there are some modules that are expecting
that 0 is closed.  

Hmm.  Oh, joy:

/** Are we going to keep the connection alive for another request?
 *  -1 fatal error, 0 undecided, 1 yes   */
signed int keepalive:2;

Sounds like we just need an explicit no here.  Or, we can use the
-1 to mean 'no.'  However, a lot of places are using 0 for no -
that behavior looks incorrect.  -- justin