DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40418>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40418 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-06 10:40 ------- (In reply to comment #1) > This is not making sense. If you think accept can return 0 when using SSL, > then > there's a bug with accept (since it's most likely not supposed to return a > null > pointer; I have not coded for that case, and it's a miracle it doesn't just > crash right away), it has nothing to do with a "deadlock". (In reply to comment #1) > This is not making sense. If you think accept can return 0 when using SSL, > then > there's a bug with accept (since it's most likely not supposed to return a > null > pointer; I have not coded for that case, and it's a miracle it doesn't just > crash right away), it has nothing to do with a "deadlock". If setSocketOptions() returns false the connector leak one Worker thread or am I missing something? - Vicenç -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
