On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 09:27:08AM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> Does that explanation work for you?
Yes, perfectly, thanks for taking the time. I stupidly forgot about the
timeout calls... sorry!
Regards, Joe
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Trawick [mailto:]
> Sent: Montag, 13. August 2012 15:35
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: core filters vs non-blocking socket (was Re: Fix for
> Windows bug#52476)
>
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger,
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group
wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Joe Orton [mailto:jor...@redhat.com]
>> Sent: Montag, 13. August 2012 14:32
>> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
>> Subject: core filters vs non-blocking socket (was Re: Fix for Windows
>> bug#5
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Orton [mailto:jor...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Montag, 13. August 2012 14:32
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: core filters vs non-blocking socket (was Re: Fix for Windows
> bug#52476)
>
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 01:31:07PM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> > We
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 01:31:07PM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>> We picked up that apr_socket_opt_set() from the async-dev branch with
>> r327872, though the timeout calls in there were changed subsequently.
>> I wonder if that call is stray and
