On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Eric Covener <cove...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> is the "rc" check just covering further bases? Should we trace or set
>> a note here?
> For me "rc" would catch at least the DECLINED case (no hook at all),
> though it may not possibly happen with default builtin http module
> (does --with-http=shared work?).
> I also think that it's easier for a module which asks for the MPM to
> finish the connection, to simply return an error in a
> process_connection hook than something like OK + CONN_STATE_LINGER (+-
> c->aborted = 1), .

Maybe the header could be clarified one way or another.

> I'd be fine with a c->notes, but wouldn't that be useful for a
> pre_close_connection hook only?
> Or do you mean an ap_log_cerror() at some specific level (which I'd be
> fine with too)?

Yes, I guess notes are not so useful for such an early failure.  Maybe
ap_log_cerror() at some traceN level would be good.

Reply via email to