httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steffen <>
Subject Re: h2_proxy_util.c, is this going make 2.4.21?
Date Tue, 14 Jun 2016 09:06:02 GMT

I rather like to test before tagging.

Can you apply these changes for my testing also to  Git ?


On Tuesday 14/06/2016 at 10:54, Stefan Eissing  wrote:
> I just backported the h2_proxy_util.c change in r1748359. It also uses 
> the back ported ap_cstr_casecmp* instead of its own copies. I tried to 
> update the win build files appropriately, but am unable to check the 
> correctness.
> Gregg: please commit your changes when awake enough. Hopefully Jim can 
> keep his fingers from the tag button long enough...
> Cheers,
>    Stefan
>> Am 13.06.2016 um 22:40 schrieb William A Rowe Jr 
>> <>:
>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Gregg Smith <> wrote:
>> I have the to connect this module in the traditional windows build but 
>> as of right now it's using h2_util.c which Bill had an objection to. 
>> See his comments 
>> So to me that seems to be a -1 to mod_proxy_http2, at minimum on 
>> Windows. In trunk Stefan seems to have chosen option 3 in Bill's list 
>> and that is h2_proxy_util.c.
>> If I knew that was going to be backported I would add the rest of the 
>> bits needed to use h2_proxy_util.c. If it is not going to make it, 
>> then I will not commit anything and there will be no mod_proxy_http2 
>> in 2.4.21 on Windows. If this gets in overnight and you tag in the 
>> morning, I may not be out of bed yet due to the time difference.
>> That's where my concern is. Make sense?
>> Shouldn't be a concern. I'm mildly concerned about the single-level 
>> namespace
>> collisions on Unix, but because the .so object is pre-linked to its 
>> own functions
>> before anything is imported/exported, should be using 
>> h2_utils.o
>> and should be using h2_proxy_utils.o, even without 
>> any
>> additional namespace protection. A third module trying to use the 
>> functions of
>> those two modules could cause headaches, but that can be addressed 
>> later.
>> Windows has two-level namespaces, so there is no ambiguity between 
>> symbols
>> in one .so (.dll) and a second, unless you are simultaneously linking 
>> a module
>> to both of these modules.
>> I accept Stefan's proposed fix for the time being, and we can 
>> certainly make
>> this simpler on trunk in the future.
>> Cheers,
>> Bill

View raw message