- From: Olga Antropova <olga@goliath.eai.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 13:40:02 -0500 (CDT)
- To: Gordon Prioreschi <gpriores@ix.netcom.com>
- Cc: www-lib@w3.org
Gordon, 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 interested. Olga. 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 Sounds like any patch I would write might well be superseded by your 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