Ruediger Pluem wrote: > 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.
Problems like? The use of the connection in the HTTP proxy code is a prerequisite for supporting SSL to a backend server. > 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. Downsides like? > 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. Communication is bidirectional, so we have to watch both connections simultaneously. How does using a socket bucket solve this? Regards, Graham --
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
