httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Eric Covener <cove...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: T&R of 2.2.13 [corresponding to Re: T&R of 2.4.13]
Date Thu, 04 Jun 2015 17:20:26 GMT
maybe part of what I am missing is that any output filter failure is a lost
cause, and the mapping happens on the input filter side.

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 1:15 PM Eric Covener <covener@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm a little confused by AP_FILTER_ERROR as used in the handlers we have
> now.  Is this return code evolved to mean only to issue a 500 error if the
> response has not been committed?
>
> /** Returned by any filter if the filter chain encounters an error
>  *  and has already dealt with the error response.
>  */
> #define AP_FILTER_ERROR         -102
>
> But now the handlers have this pattern:
>                 status = ap_pass_brigade(r->output_filters, bbout);
>                 if (status != APR_SUCCESS) {
>                     /* no way to know what type of error occurred */
>                     ap_log_rerror(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_DEBUG, status, r,
> APLOGNO(01410)
>                              "reflector_handler: ap_pass_brigade returned
> %i",
>                                   status);
>                     return AP_FILTER_ERROR;
>                 }
>
> So we don't actually retain whether some filter really handled the error.
>   I think in practice this is okay, because the handlers can't make a very
> smart decision here anyway.
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 12:44 PM William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
> wrote:
>
>> More context at your fingertips without refreshing httpd-2.2 branch,
>> first...
>>
>> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57832
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 11:26 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> [Changing subject, don't mean to hijack the 2.4 activity train]
>>>
>>> There is a modestly important patch, already backported to 2.4.x branch,
>>> that is still sitting in 2.2 status.  Could one more committer please
>>> review
>>> and vote on that remaining fix?
>>>
>>> Because it helps to avert an unintended doubled response in some edge
>>> cases, I consider this one important enough to hold up 2.2 tag for some
>>> more hours.
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 4:36 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 6:32 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Although there are some cool things that I'd like to see in
>>>>> 2.4.13, I don't want to hold off any longer (plus, those
>>>>> cool things would be good incentive for a 2.4.14 sooner
>>>>> rather than later).
>>>>>
>>>>> I plan to T&R 2.4.13 on Thurs, by Noon eastern.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +1, planning to match you with a T&R of 2.2.30 on the same timetable.
>>>>
>>>> There is a nominally important last patch in 2.2 STATUS, if a third
>>>> pair of eyes have the cycles to review it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

Mime
View raw message