On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 10:07 -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: > On May 21, 2007, at 5:30 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: > > > > > > > On 05/21/2007 02:44 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > >> The logic should be: > >> > >> 1. If a per-worker value is set, use that. > >> 2. If not, then if a ProxyTimeout value is set, use that. > >> 3. Otherwise, use Timeout > >> > >> +1 on fixing that :) > > > > This sounds sane and I plan to do this, but what about the original > > question? > > Do I get you right that you propose to adjust the documentation for > > ProxyTimeout? > > The current behaviour of ProxyTimeout is to fall back to Timeout if > > no ProxyTimeout > > is set. The documented behaviour is to have a default value of 300 > > secs if there > > is no ProxyTimeout set (regardless of the setting of Timeout, which > > also defaults > > to 300). > > > > I think that the above logic makes the most sense and that > the code and the docs should be adjusted to match the > logic :) :)
The timeout is set to c->base_server->timeout in core_pre_connection() called by ap_proxy_connection_create via ap_run_pre_connection. Quick patch is apr_socket_timeout_get() before ap_run_pre_connection and apr_socket_timeout_set() after if needed. Comments? Cheers Jean-Frederic >
