Serf, WAS: Re: AW: AW: svn commit: r378032 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES modules/proxy/mod_proxy_http.c modules/proxy/proxy_util.c

2006-02-21 Thread Plüm , Rüdiger , VIS
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Serf's mailing list is at: http://mailman.webdav.org/mailman/listinfo/serf-dev/ (You'll find some familiar faces posting there. *duck*) Thanks for the hints. I see it is a low traffic mailing list :-). I hope to find time to have a look into

AW: svn commit: r378032 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES modules/proxy/mod_proxy_http.c modules/proxy/proxy_util.c

2006-02-21 Thread Plüm , Rüdiger , VIS
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Joe Orton The regression test runs last night had between zero and three failures in t/ssl/proxy.t in various builds (timing dependent, I guess); the build which had three failures was: So that seems to be related to the other issue we

AW: svn commit: r378032 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES modules/proxy/mod_proxy_http.c modules/proxy/proxy_util.c

2006-02-20 Thread Plüm , Rüdiger , VIS
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Joe Orton New Revision: 378032 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=378032view=rev Log: *) mod_proxy: Fix KeepAlives not being allowed and set to backend servers. PR38602. [Ruediger Pluem, Jim Jagielski] Also, document previous

AW: svn commit: r378032 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES modules/proxy/mod_proxy_http.c modules/proxy/proxy_util.c

2006-02-20 Thread Plüm , Rüdiger , VIS
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Joe Orton http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/200602.mbox /ajax/[EMAIL PROTECTED] this is really weird. Maybe another change that happened after r378032? Maybe Jim's build didn't include mod_ssl? r378032 is the most recent change

AW: svn commit: r378032 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES modules/proxy/mod_proxy_http.c modules/proxy/proxy_util.c

2006-02-20 Thread Plüm , Rüdiger , VIS
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Joe Orton Could you please give the following patch a try? That fixed most of the failures, there are still two left: OK. That gives a better idea what possibly goes wrong. t/ssl/proxyok 61/172# Failed test 62 in t/ssl/proxy.t at line 112

Re: AW: svn commit: r378032 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES modules/proxy/mod_proxy_http.c modules/proxy/proxy_util.c

2006-02-20 Thread Jim Jagielski
Hmmm... Possibly SSL requires close_on_recycle. Or, at least, using that flag as required for SSL.

Re: AW: svn commit: r378032 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES modules/proxy/mod_proxy_http.c modules/proxy/proxy_util.c

2006-02-20 Thread Jim Jagielski
Small idea: should we adjust ap_proxy_http_cleanup() to accept a status value, and thus make that logic internal to it? That is, have an OK/NOK conditional aspect to ap_proxy_http_cleanup()? I think it would be useful at the other places were we use it... PS: I'm planning to be offline for the

Re: AW: svn commit: r378032 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES modules/proxy/mod_proxy_http.c modules/proxy/proxy_util.c

2006-02-20 Thread Jim Jagielski
Jim Jagielski wrote: Hmmm... Possibly SSL requires close_on_recycle. Or, at least, using that flag as required for SSL. I don't have time to explain in more detail, but the more I look over the old way, it was to maintain some sort of local state-of-health on the socket pre-and-post each

AW: AW: svn commit: r378032 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES modules/proxy/mod_proxy_http.c modules/proxy/proxy_util.c

2006-02-20 Thread Plüm , Rüdiger , VIS
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Jim Jagielski Jim Jagielski wrote: Hmmm... Possibly SSL requires close_on_recycle. Or, at least, using that flag as required for SSL. I don't have time to explain in more detail, but the more I look over the old way, it was to maintain

Serf, WAS: Re: AW: AW: svn commit: r378032 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES modules/proxy/mod_proxy_http.c modules/proxy/proxy_util.c

2006-02-20 Thread Sander Striker
Plüm wrote: I think the SSL problem is caused by throwing away the conn_rec entry for the backend and create a new one for each request. That does not sound right, but I admit that keeping it must be carefully examinated due to several possible issues. Two that I can see immeditately are:

AW: AW: AW: svn commit: r378032 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES modules/proxy/mod_proxy_http.c modules/proxy/proxy_util.c

2006-02-20 Thread Plüm , Rüdiger , VIS
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Jim Jagielski term. Might be easier if we have a http / https client library as part of httpd or apr-util. This only helps http, not ajp/fcgi or other protocols. True, but ajp already does not use the fake conn_rec / request_rec stuff. Instead

Re: AW: AW: AW: svn commit: r378032 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES modules/proxy/mod_proxy_http.c modules/proxy/proxy_util.c

2006-02-20 Thread Jim Jagielski
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Pl=FCm=2C_R=FCdiger=2C_VIS?= wrote: -Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht- Von: Jim Jagielski=20 term. Might be easier if we have a http / https client=20 library as part=20 of httpd or apr-util. =20 This only helps http, not ajp/fcgi or other protocols. True,

Re: AW: AW: AW: svn commit: r378032 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES modules/proxy/mod_proxy_http.c modules/proxy/proxy_util.c

2006-02-20 Thread Ruediger Pluem
On 02/20/2006 06:38 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: =20 This only helps http, not ajp/fcgi or other protocols. True, but ajp already does not use the fake conn_rec / request_rec = stuff. Instead it works directly on the socket, or better the code in ajp* = works directly on the socket and

Re: AW: AW: svn commit: r378032 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES modules/proxy/mod_proxy_http.c modules/proxy/proxy_util.c

2006-02-20 Thread Ruediger Pluem
On 02/20/2006 05:17 PM, Plüm wrote: For me that puts the question on the table if using fake request_rec and conn_rec structures for the backend connections is really a good idea. This misuse already leads to problems in other areas. Of course I should point a reference :-):

Re: Serf, WAS: Re: AW: AW: svn commit: r378032 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES modules/proxy/mod_proxy_http.c modules/proxy/proxy_util.c

2006-02-20 Thread Justin Erenkrantz
On 2/20/06, Sander Striker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For me that puts the question on the table if using fake request_rec and conn_rec structures for the backend connections is really a good idea. This misuse already leads to problems in other areas. But reworking this will take much time