On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 01:18:19PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 12:29:52PM -0700, 'Aaron Bannert' wrote: > > Ok, what's the word on this? Is my patch good or can we settle on another > > way to do this and just be consistent? > > Please figure out another way to do it. Your change is wrong.
I don't care if my change is wrong, this is a bug that needs to be fixed and it seems to me that we can't agree what the correct solution is. "Please figure out another way to do it" is not good enough. > My take is that the non-ap_get_brigade() path (i.e. > ap_get_client_block/mod_cgi) isn't handling the error case when > ap_get_brigade says there is no data available due to the > Limit case. If we are allowing the non-ap_get_brigade() path then are we requiring *all* modules that might deal with HTTP to have to understand Content-length: and chunked encoding? If that is the case, then we have far more than one bug to deal with. > This lack of return codes to the application is why I believe > that ap_get_client_block API is bogus. I would expect -1 to be > returned by ap_get_client_block (modules/http/http_protocol.c:1658). > It also sets the keepalive to be -1 - which is bogus, IMHO. -- justin That has nothing to do with my patch. Besides, I'm not even sure what you are saying. When should and should not (in your opinion) -1 be returned from ap_get_client_block? -aaron
