> Am 10.09.2020 um 11:24 schrieb Ruediger Pluem <rpl...@apache.org>:
>
>
>
> On 9/10/20 9:31 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Am 10.09.2020 um 09:29 schrieb Ruediger Pluem <rpl...@apache.org>:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/9/20 10:21 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Am 08.09.2020 um 21:11 schrieb Ruediger Pluem <rpl...@apache.org>:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/8/20 9:22 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 08.09.2020 um 08:27 schrieb Ruediger Pluem <rpl...@apache.org>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/21/20 9:20 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/20/20 11:38 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Am 20.08.2020 um 11:35 schrieb Ruediger Pluem <rpl...@apache.org>:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/20/20 10:47 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 20.08.2020 um 10:01 schrieb Ruediger Pluem <rpl...@apache.org>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/19/20 12:18 PM, Stefan Eissing wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 19.08.2020 um 12:08 schrieb Ruediger Pluem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rpl...@apache.org>:
>>>
>>>>>>> Any feedback or comments?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry about the delay, my inbox in unhealthy these days.
>>>>>
>>>>> No problem. Even more thanks then for taking time for a review.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for improving this.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Had a quick look. My read: it looks like a good approach. The request
>>>>>> still needs to be processed in a worker, but that should be very light
>>>>>> and fast. I was first confused by the "early_http_status" term as there
>>>>>> is the "103 early hints" intermediate response code stuck in my brain.
>>>>>> Maybe we should just call it http_status and have a
>>>>>> HTTP_NEEDS_FURTHER_PROCESSING (0) in our server.
>>>>>
>>>>> Updated the PR and renamed early_http_status to http_status.
>>>>> What do you mean with / what is the purpose of
>>>>> HTTP_NEEDS_FURTHER_PROCESSING? Should http_status be initialized with
>>>>> this define
>>>>> or do you want to replace conditions of the type (http_status) with
>>>>> (http_status != HTTP_NEEDS_FURTHER_PROCESSING)?
>>>>> At what place should we define it? In h2.h?
>>>>
>>>> Just a thought that 0 could indicate that the http status has not been
>>>> determined yet (default) or in case of an early error the code to return.
>>>> Which then prevents further processing. The name for such a value was not
>>>> entirely serious. We could just check on != 0.
>>> It is already the case that a value of 0 in http_status indicates that the
>>> http status has not been determined yet and 0 is
>>> already the default value via the apr_pcalloc of the structure.
>>>
>>> Would you like to see the following?
>>>
>>> 1. Make a define like HTTP_NEEDS_FURTHER_PROCESSING (I would propose
>>> H2_HTTP_STATUS_UNSET, sweet naming discussion :-))
>>> 2. In addition to the apr_pcalloc which already makes http_status zero set
>>> http_status explicitly to H2_HTTP_STATUS_UNSET.
>>> 3. Replace the (http_status) conditions in the ifs with (http_status !=
>>> H2_HTTP_STATUS_UNSET)
>>
>> I like that very much. I think it makes good reading.
>
> That was a quick reply. So the now updated PR is fine for you?
;) You got me in the right moment. The PR looks fine.
Can we merge PRs against httpd on github now? If not, maybe a PR against
<https://github.com/icing/mod_h2> would make things easier?
Cheers, Stefan
>
> Regards
>
> Rüdiger
