> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Roy T. Fielding > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 8. Dezember 2005 03:17
[..cut..] > > Ok. Then I withdraw my objections against the setting of > c->aborted. I > > just understood its purpose wrong. Thanks for clarification. > > No, you understood its purpose correctly. I have no idea > what Justin is talking about -- maybe the proxy's connection > to the outbound server? > c->aborted is only set on the inbound connection when a previous write > to that connection has failed. Ok. Any further opinions on the purpose of c->aborted that support either Roys or Justins point of view on this? > > Setting the inbound c->aborted within a filter just to > indicate that the outbound connection has died is wrong -- it > prevents other parts of the server (that are working fine) > from correctly handling the bad gateway response. Just to ensure that we are talking about the same thing here: The client will never get aware of the bad gateway as it already has received the headers. So we are only talking about handling this bad gateway situation correctly internally, so that for example mod_cache does not cache an incomplete and thus broken response. The client is doomed anyway. As far as I can see everybody agrees that the connection to the client must be closed in this situation. Stupid question: Can't we enforce at least this by setting c->keepalive to AP_CONN_CLOSE. Of course this does not solve the problem to make the remaining parts of the code aware of the bad gateway situation. Regards Rüdiger [..cut..]
