W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-lib@w3.org > July to September 1999

RE: Bug in libwww-ssl -- can I fix?

From: Olga Antropova <olga@goliath.eai.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 13:40:02 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <XFMail.990917134002.olga@eai.com>
To: Gordon Prioreschi <gpriores@ix.netcom.com>
Cc: www-lib@w3.org

I do not know if it will help but try to set BodyWriteDelay to shorter then
default time like:

    HTTP_setBodyWriteDelay(21, 30);
    // start POST request 
    BOOL st = HTPostAnchor(src, dst, request); //or whatever you use

As for the HTSSL bug - you still send the patch, whoever uses the current
version may be interested in that. I am not updating the library (do not have
write permission to cvs). I will also send my patches later if someone


On 17-Sep-99 Gordon Prioreschi wrote:
> At 10:12 AM 9/17/99 -0500, you wrote:
>>So you are trying to use ssl with library's POST (that means with nonblocking
>>sockets and event loops!). Could you please let me know if it works - I have
>>never tried that.
> The primary problem I'm tracking might have something to do with this. I
> believe that libwww sends the MIME header, the server it's connected to
> sends back a "continue", at which point libwww does a read for some reason
> instead of sending the body of the POST. I haven't tracked it completely
> down, though -- the eventual timeout on that read is driving the bug I
> reported, and I happened to track that down first.
> I'd expect the read-instead-of-write to be a bug in a state machine in
> libwww rather than having anything to do with HTSSL, but I don't know yet.
> I'll report back to the mailing list when I really know what's going on.
>>In my code I actually moved the management of htssl to the Channel since
>>managing htssl (for reader and writer of the same connection) in HTSSL.c
>>practically duplicates the channel management.
> Sounds like any patch I would write might well be superseded by your
> change. Personally, I don't need the patch -- I won't even run into this
> bug if I fix the problem that's driving it. I'm more than happy to put a
> patch together if it will be useful to the world at large, but if that
> whole layer of code is going away, should I bother?
>                                           Later,
>                                              -g
Received on Friday, 17 September 1999 14:41:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:33:52 UTC