Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Message-ID: <43F11572.1000406@apache.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 00:25:38 +0100
From: Ruediger Pluem <rpluem@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050920
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Patch] Keep Alive not workwing with mod_proxy  (PR38602)
References: <43EFA041.3040705@apache.org>
 <B7D8CD5D-7F87-47F0-BCCE-E7C8466F3341@jaguNET.com>
In-Reply-To: <B7D8CD5D-7F87-47F0-BCCE-E7C8466F3341@jaguNET.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


On 02/13/2006 05:22 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> This looks like a big change, and my only concern is

This is why I discuss it first, before I commit it :-)

> that the behavior changes, although it appears that
> we don't know why the current behavior is the
> way it is...

Then we should either find out or adjust it to the behaviour
that we think is correct as the current behaviour doesn't seem to be.

>>
> 
> Not sure why we would bother still having that !backend
> check, since we know it's NULL. We set it to NULL :)

Well spotted :-). I missed that. I keep this in mind and will add
it to the patch once we have discussed and cleared the real hard stuff.

> And this also seems to allude to the fact that the
> present framework is to support pooled connections.
> Not sure how the above would conflict with subrequests

Good question. Does anybody remember why the old code insisted of having a
fresh connection by all means for a subrequest?

> 
> Does the patched version pass the test framework?

Have not checked so far. I did not manage to get the test framework running on
my box so far. Can someone who has it running give it a try? That would be
very nice.

Regards

Rüdiger