Moving over from Bugzilla to dev@ where the discussion belongs: Ruediger Pluem 2009-09-13 13:18:36 CEST In reply to comment #88) > Created an attachment (id=24252) [details] [details] > Close backend connection when client disconnects > > This patch fixes the first of the two issues above.
Thanks for the patch, but the key question that needs to be answered first and that I already posted on dev@ is: Why don't we stick with direct socket communication with the backend, but wrap a connection around it. Graham Leggett 2009-09-13 13:28:51 CEST > I would argue for the exact opposite - if you're using a connection to > communicate on the front, then use a connection to communicate on the back. > Mixing the two is ugly, as the comment in the original code (now removed as it > is fixed) stated. The comment complained about talking to the client via direct socket communication which is somehow understandable. Using the connection wrapper for the backend communication is already a very hacky (albeit working) approach in the current proxy code that was needed to avoid redoing all the HTTP code work that was already there. It created several problems. As we do not need any protocol filtering or anything else when talking to the backend but just a plain socket communication I see no reason why we should make the code more complex as needed and get all the downsides of the connection wrapper for the backend communication. And BTW, we still fiddle directly with the socket (client and backend) by doing a poll on them. Mixing connection and poll really looks ugly to me :-). If you want to work with brigades and buckets in the code just create a socket bucket for the backend connection. Regards Rüdiger
