On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Yann Ylavic <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Eric Covener <[email protected]> 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.
