Skip to content

Setting the read timeout in the RequestConfig is not enough. #150

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Nov 9, 2018

Conversation

Martin-Luft
Copy link
Contributor

The read timeout must be set in the SocketConfig as well.

Setting the read timeout only in the RequestConfig can cause hangs which
could block the whole proxy forever.

Martin Wegner added 3 commits October 11, 2018 11:31
The read timeout must be set in the SocketConfig as well.

Setting the read timeout only in the RequestConfig can cause hangs which
could block the whole proxy forever.
createHttpClient() and do not create a customized socket configuration
if no read timeout is set
@dsmiley
Copy link
Collaborator

dsmiley commented Nov 8, 2018

Cool. Please update CHANGES.md too and I'll squash-merge.

@dsmiley dsmiley changed the title Setting the read timeout in the RequectConfig is not enough. Setting the read timeout in the RequestConfig is not enough. Nov 8, 2018
@Martin-Luft
Copy link
Contributor Author

@dsmiley done :)

@dsmiley dsmiley merged commit 5ee88fb into mitre:master Nov 9, 2018
@Martin-Luft
Copy link
Contributor Author

@dsmiley any release plans for 1.11?

@dsmiley
Copy link
Collaborator

dsmiley commented Nov 19, 2018

I think I will in a week or two. Feel free to harass me if I don't :-)

@Martin-Luft
Copy link
Contributor Author

@dsmiley PING :)

@Martin-Luft
Copy link
Contributor Author

@dsmiley PONG ?

@dsmiley
Copy link
Collaborator

dsmiley commented Jan 10, 2019

Tracked here: #157

@mirabilos
Copy link

This PR causes an incompatible change, our code no longer builds because of the overriding method has changed (we need to add HTTP basic auth).

Therefore, release 1.11 really should have been called 2.0!

@dsmiley
Copy link
Collaborator

dsmiley commented Nov 23, 2019

I confess I don't pay much attention to backward compatibility; sorry. At least the proxy is small, and at least you got a build error instead of some silent semantics difference.

@mirabilos
Copy link

mirabilos commented Nov 23, 2019 via email

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants