https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56188
--- Comment #18 from Luca Toscano <[email protected]> --- Feedback from the dev@ mailing list, summarized by the words of Jacob Champion: """ I don't think we should implement FCGI_ABORT until/unless we decide to implement FCGI multiplexing. I understand that the bug's OP is operating happily with an FCGI_ABORT patch, but until they respond to you to clarify what backend they're using, we don't know if their approach is correct even for their own use case. I don't think we should send FCGI_ABORT and then immediately close the connection without waiting for the client to respond. In my mind, sending FCGI_ABORT is a contract: "we will accept and discard a reasonable number of messages for the current request ID while we wait for you to send FCGI_END_REQUEST". I do think that closing the FCGI connection when the client closes theirs is valuable. Eric's suggestion on #httpd to hide this behind a directive is probably wise; we've broken enough FCGI backends recently... """ So the next step is to modify my patch to include a module directive that guards this new behavior. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
