httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ruediger Pluem <>
Subject PR29744
Date Sun, 13 Sep 2009 11:53:55 GMT
Moving over from Bugzilla to dev@ where the discussion belongs:

 Ruediger Pluem      2009-09-13 13:18:36 CEST
In reply to comment #88)
> Created an attachment (id=24252) [details] [details]
> Close backend connection when client disconnects
> This patch fixes the first of the two issues above.

Thanks for the patch, but the key question that needs to be answered first and
that I already posted on dev@ is: Why don't we stick with direct socket
communication with the backend, but wrap a connection around it.

Graham Leggett 2009-09-13 13:28:51 CEST

> I would argue for the exact opposite - if you're using a connection to
> communicate on the front, then use a connection to communicate on the back.
> Mixing the two is ugly, as the comment in the original code (now removed as it
> is fixed) stated.

The comment complained about talking to the client via direct socket
communication which is somehow understandable. Using the connection wrapper for the
backend communication is already a very hacky (albeit working) approach
in the current proxy code that was needed to avoid redoing all the HTTP code work
that was already there. It created several problems.
As we do not need any protocol filtering or anything else when talking to the backend
but just a plain socket communication I see no reason why we should make the code more
complex as needed and get all the downsides of the connection wrapper for the backend
And BTW, we still fiddle directly with the socket (client and backend) by doing a
poll on them. Mixing connection and poll really looks ugly to me :-).
If you want to work with brigades and buckets in the code just create a socket bucket
for the backend connection.



View raw message