From adelzhang at qq.com Thu Jul 3 09:40:12 2014
From: adelzhang at qq.com (Adel Zhang)
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 15:40:12 +0800
Subject: [99s-extend] tring to understand ranch_conns_sup
Message-ID: <op.xievlal52w9y7f@zgc-201309221420>
Ranch uses a tcp acceptor pool to accept connections concurrently. But the
acceptor process
needs to wait for the *only one* ranch_conns_sup spawning the protocol
process.
Is ranch_conns_sup maybe a bottleneck?
Thanks.
From essen at ninenines.eu Thu Jul 3 09:55:13 2014
From: essen at ninenines.eu (=?UTF-8?B?TG/Dr2MgSG9ndWlu?=)
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 09:55:13 +0200
Subject: [99s-extend] tring to understand ranch_conns_sup
In-Reply-To: <op.xievlal52w9y7f@zgc-201309221420>
References: <op.xievlal52w9y7f@zgc-201309221420>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Have you observed ranch_conns_sup be a bottleneck? In practice it
shouldn't be.
On 07/03/2014 09:40 AM, Adel Zhang wrote:
> Ranch uses a tcp acceptor pool to accept connections concurrently. But
> the acceptor process
> needs to wait for the *only one* ranch_conns_sup spawning the protocol
> process.
>
> Is ranch_conns_sup maybe a bottleneck?
>
> Thanks.
> _______________________________________________
> Extend mailing list
> Extend at lists.ninenines.eu
> https://lists.ninenines.eu/listinfo/extend
--
Lo?c Hoguin
http://ninenines.eu
From samuelrivas at gmail.com Tue Jul 8 09:12:43 2014
From: samuelrivas at gmail.com (Samuel)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 09:12:43 +0200
Subject: [99s-extend] [cowboy REST] returning {true, URL} to PUT
Message-ID: <CAH2nEUgJj1f8_RnXqeKqB1tFaDh=qzztOo9XF94S9auQ93dskg@mail.gmail.com>
Hi,
According to the documentation I should be able to return a new
location when handling a PUT request when using cowboy_rest protocol:
The AcceptResource value is the name of the callback that will be
called if the
content-type matches. It is defined as follow.
Value type: true | {true, URL} | false
That works for "true" and "false" but not for "{true, URL}", in that
case the Ranch listener crashes badly[1].
Looking into cowboy_rest.erl I see that the {true, URL} form is
restricted to POST requests:
https://github.com/extend/cowboy/blob/master/src/cowboy_rest.erl#L784
Is that intentional or should I submit a patch to add at least PUT and
PATCH to that condition (or remove all of them if that is not guarding
against something horrible)?
Regards
[1] Ranch crash log:
Ranch listener http_acceptor had connection process started with
cowboy_protocol:start_link/4 at <0.2660.0> exit with reason:
{{case_clause,{{true,"/url"},{http_req,#Port<0.15864>,ranch_tcp,keepalive,<0.2660.0>,<<"PUT">>,'HTTP/1.1',{{127,0,0,1},56983},<<"localhost">>,undefined,8080,<<"/order">>,undefined,<<>>,undefined,[],[{<<"user-agent">>,<<"curl/7.22.0
(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) libcurl/7.22.0 OpenSSL/1.0.1 zlib/1.2.3.4
libidn/1.23 librtmp/2.3">>},{<<"host">>,<<"localhost:8080">>},{<<"accept">>,<<"*/*">>},{<<"content-type">>,<<"application/json">>}],[{<<"content-type">>,{<<"application">>,<<"json">>,[]}},{<<"if-modified-since">>,undefined},{<<"if-none-match">>,undefined},{<<"if-unmodified-since">>,undefined},{<<"if-match">>,undefined},{<<"accept">>,[{{<<"*">>,<<"*">>,[]},1000,[]}]}],undefined,[{charset,undefined},{media_type,{<<"text">>,<<"html">>,[]}}],waiting,undefined,<<>>,false,waiting,[{<<"content-type">>,[<<"text">>,<<"/">>,<<"html">>,<<>>]}],<<>>,undefined},{state}}},[{cowboy_rest,process_content_type,3,[{file,"src/cowboy_rest.erl"},{line,780}]},{cowboy_protocol,execute,4,[{file,"src/cowboy_protocol.erl"},{line,529}]}]}
--
Samuel
From essen at ninenines.eu Tue Jul 8 11:57:12 2014
From: essen at ninenines.eu (=?UTF-8?B?TG/Dr2MgSG9ndWlu?=)
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 11:57:12 +0200
Subject: [99s-extend] [cowboy REST] returning {true, URL} to PUT
In-Reply-To: <CAH2nEUgJj1f8_RnXqeKqB1tFaDh=qzztOo9XF94S9auQ93dskg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH2nEUgJj1f8_RnXqeKqB1tFaDh=qzztOo9XF94S9auQ93dskg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
It's not enabled for PATCH or PUT because it makes little sense for
them. PATCH and PUT are typically used directly on the URI of the
resource, even when creating it. While you can return a "better URI" for
the created resource for them, this should be seen as a special case
rather than the norm. You can still do it by setting the location header
manually and Cowboy will react accordingly.
On 07/08/2014 09:12 AM, Samuel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> According to the documentation I should be able to return a new
> location when handling a PUT request when using cowboy_rest protocol:
>
> The AcceptResource value is the name of the callback that will be
> called if the
> content-type matches. It is defined as follow.
>
> Value type: true | {true, URL} | false
>
> That works for "true" and "false" but not for "{true, URL}", in that
> case the Ranch listener crashes badly[1].
>
> Looking into cowboy_rest.erl I see that the {true, URL} form is
> restricted to POST requests:
> https://github.com/extend/cowboy/blob/master/src/cowboy_rest.erl#L784
>
> Is that intentional or should I submit a patch to add at least PUT and
> PATCH to that condition (or remove all of them if that is not guarding
> against something horrible)?
>
> Regards
>
> [1] Ranch crash log:
> Ranch listener http_acceptor had connection process started with
> cowboy_protocol:start_link/4 at <0.2660.0> exit with reason:
> {{case_clause,{{true,"/url"},{http_req,#Port<0.15864>,ranch_tcp,keepalive,<0.2660.0>,<<"PUT">>,'HTTP/1.1',{{127,0,0,1},56983},<<"localhost">>,undefined,8080,<<"/order">>,undefined,<<>>,undefined,[],[{<<"user-agent">>,<<"curl/7.22.0
> (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) libcurl/7.22.0 OpenSSL/1.0.1 zlib/1.2.3.4
> libidn/1.23 librtmp/2.3">>},{<<"host">>,<<"localhost:8080">>},{<<"accept">>,<<"*/*">>},{<<"content-type">>,<<"application/json">>}],[{<<"content-type">>,{<<"application">>,<<"json">>,[]}},{<<"if-modified-since">>,undefined},{<<"if-none-match">>,undefined},{<<"if-unmodified-since">>,undefined},{<<"if-match">>,undefined},{<<"accept">>,[{{<<"*">>,<<"*">>,[]},1000,[]}]}],undefined,[{charset,undefined},{media_type,{<<"text">>,<<"html">>,[]}}],waiting,undefined,<<>>,false,waiting,[{<<"content-type">>,[<<"text">>,<<"/">>,<<"html">>,<<>>]}],<<>>,undefined},{state}}},[{cowboy_rest,process_content_type,3,[{file,"src/cowboy_rest.erl"},{line,780}]},{cowboy_protocol,execute,4,[{file,"src/cowboy_protocol.erl"},{line,529}]}]}
>
--
Lo?c Hoguin
http://ninenines.eu
From samuelrivas at gmail.com Tue Jul 8 13:32:45 2014
From: samuelrivas at gmail.com (Samuel)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 13:32:45 +0200
Subject: [99s-extend] [cowboy REST] returning {true, URL} to PUT
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <CAH2nEUgJj1f8_RnXqeKqB1tFaDh=qzztOo9XF94S9auQ93dskg@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
Message-ID: <CAH2nEUi9qkU4tjeYMNzQeppJ4me3p3z2UPqfSB-dQ6G4x_ExyA@mail.gmail.com>
Ok, thanks. That should probably be mentioned in the documentation of
content_types_accepted, as it says {true, URI} is a valid output for
the provided function.
Just out of curiosity from a non-so-expert in REST. The API spec
(which I am not the author of) says the PUT call should create a
resource with a unique id and return the URI of the created resource
in the Location header. That is something like PUT /some/resource
should return /some/resource/1234 in the Location. some/resource is
fixed but 1234 would be generated for each instance of /some/resource.
Is that considered nonsensical?
On 8 July 2014 11:57, Lo?c Hoguin <essen at ninenines.eu> wrote:
> It's not enabled for PATCH or PUT because it makes little sense for them.
> PATCH and PUT are typically used directly on the URI of the resource, even
> when creating it. While you can return a "better URI" for the created
> resource for them, this should be seen as a special case rather than the
> norm. You can still do it by setting the location header manually and Cowboy
> will react accordingly.
>
>
> On 07/08/2014 09:12 AM, Samuel wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> According to the documentation I should be able to return a new
>> location when handling a PUT request when using cowboy_rest protocol:
>>
>> The AcceptResource value is the name of the callback that will be
>> called if the
>> content-type matches. It is defined as follow.
>>
>> Value type: true | {true, URL} | false
>>
>> That works for "true" and "false" but not for "{true, URL}", in that
>> case the Ranch listener crashes badly[1].
>>
>> Looking into cowboy_rest.erl I see that the {true, URL} form is
>> restricted to POST requests:
>> https://github.com/extend/cowboy/blob/master/src/cowboy_rest.erl#L784
>>
>> Is that intentional or should I submit a patch to add at least PUT and
>> PATCH to that condition (or remove all of them if that is not guarding
>> against something horrible)?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> [1] Ranch crash log:
>> Ranch listener http_acceptor had connection process started with
>> cowboy_protocol:start_link/4 at <0.2660.0> exit with reason:
>>
>> {{case_clause,{{true,"/url"},{http_req,#Port<0.15864>,ranch_tcp,keepalive,<0.2660.0>,<<"PUT">>,'HTTP/1.1',{{127,0,0,1},56983},<<"localhost">>,undefined,8080,<<"/order">>,undefined,<<>>,undefined,[],[{<<"user-agent">>,<<"curl/7.22.0
>> (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) libcurl/7.22.0 OpenSSL/1.0.1 zlib/1.2.3.4
>> libidn/1.23
>> librtmp/2.3">>},{<<"host">>,<<"localhost:8080">>},{<<"accept">>,<<"*/*">>},{<<"content-type">>,<<"application/json">>}],[{<<"content-type">>,{<<"application">>,<<"json">>,[]}},{<<"if-modified-since">>,undefined},{<<"if-none-match">>,undefined},{<<"if-unmodified-since">>,undefined},{<<"if-match">>,undefined},{<<"accept">>,[{{<<"*">>,<<"*">>,[]},1000,[]}]}],undefined,[{charset,undefined},{media_type,{<<"text">>,<<"html">>,[]}}],waiting,undefined,<<>>,false,waiting,[{<<"content-type">>,[<<"text">>,<<"/">>,<<"html">>,<<>>]}],<<>>,undefined},{state}}},[{cowboy_rest,process_content_type,3,[{file,"src/cowboy_rest.erl"},{line,780}]},{cowboy_protocol,execute,4,[{file,"src/cowboy_protocol.erl"},{line,529}]}]}
>>
>
> --
> Lo?c Hoguin
> http://ninenines.eu
--
Samuel
From essen at ninenines.eu Tue Jul 8 13:42:00 2014
From: essen at ninenines.eu (=?UTF-8?B?TG/Dr2MgSG9ndWlu?=)
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 13:42:00 +0200
Subject: [99s-extend] [cowboy REST] returning {true, URL} to PUT
In-Reply-To: <CAH2nEUi9qkU4tjeYMNzQeppJ4me3p3z2UPqfSB-dQ6G4x_ExyA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH2nEUgJj1f8_RnXqeKqB1tFaDh=qzztOo9XF94S9auQ93dskg@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAH2nEUi9qkU4tjeYMNzQeppJ4me3p3z2UPqfSB-dQ6G4x_ExyA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
That's what POST should do.
Compare:
PUT /some/resource/1234 -> no redirect needed
POST /some/resource -> creates /some/resource/1234, redirects
If /some/resource is a collection then PUT on that collection is
supposed to replace it entirely.
Again it's possible for PUT to create a resource elsewhere, but
typically the redirect would be from something like
http://api.yourservice.com/resource/1234 to
http://cloudthingy.server137.yourservice.com/whatever/resource/1234 and
not to do what POST is intended for.
On 07/08/2014 01:32 PM, Samuel wrote:
> Ok, thanks. That should probably be mentioned in the documentation of
> content_types_accepted, as it says {true, URI} is a valid output for
> the provided function.
>
> Just out of curiosity from a non-so-expert in REST. The API spec
> (which I am not the author of) says the PUT call should create a
> resource with a unique id and return the URI of the created resource
> in the Location header. That is something like PUT /some/resource
> should return /some/resource/1234 in the Location. some/resource is
> fixed but 1234 would be generated for each instance of /some/resource.
> Is that considered nonsensical?
>
> On 8 July 2014 11:57, Lo?c Hoguin <essen at ninenines.eu> wrote:
>> It's not enabled for PATCH or PUT because it makes little sense for them.
>> PATCH and PUT are typically used directly on the URI of the resource, even
>> when creating it. While you can return a "better URI" for the created
>> resource for them, this should be seen as a special case rather than the
>> norm. You can still do it by setting the location header manually and Cowboy
>> will react accordingly.
>>
>>
>> On 07/08/2014 09:12 AM, Samuel wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> According to the documentation I should be able to return a new
>>> location when handling a PUT request when using cowboy_rest protocol:
>>>
>>> The AcceptResource value is the name of the callback that will be
>>> called if the
>>> content-type matches. It is defined as follow.
>>>
>>> Value type: true | {true, URL} | false
>>>
>>> That works for "true" and "false" but not for "{true, URL}", in that
>>> case the Ranch listener crashes badly[1].
>>>
>>> Looking into cowboy_rest.erl I see that the {true, URL} form is
>>> restricted to POST requests:
>>> https://github.com/extend/cowboy/blob/master/src/cowboy_rest.erl#L784
>>>
>>> Is that intentional or should I submit a patch to add at least PUT and
>>> PATCH to that condition (or remove all of them if that is not guarding
>>> against something horrible)?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> [1] Ranch crash log:
>>> Ranch listener http_acceptor had connection process started with
>>> cowboy_protocol:start_link/4 at <0.2660.0> exit with reason:
>>>
>>> {{case_clause,{{true,"/url"},{http_req,#Port<0.15864>,ranch_tcp,keepalive,<0.2660.0>,<<"PUT">>,'HTTP/1.1',{{127,0,0,1},56983},<<"localhost">>,undefined,8080,<<"/order">>,undefined,<<>>,undefined,[],[{<<"user-agent">>,<<"curl/7.22.0
>>> (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) libcurl/7.22.0 OpenSSL/1.0.1 zlib/1.2.3.4
>>> libidn/1.23
>>> librtmp/2.3">>},{<<"host">>,<<"localhost:8080">>},{<<"accept">>,<<"*/*">>},{<<"content-type">>,<<"application/json">>}],[{<<"content-type">>,{<<"application">>,<<"json">>,[]}},{<<"if-modified-since">>,undefined},{<<"if-none-match">>,undefined},{<<"if-unmodified-since">>,undefined},{<<"if-match">>,undefined},{<<"accept">>,[{{<<"*">>,<<"*">>,[]},1000,[]}]}],undefined,[{charset,undefined},{media_type,{<<"text">>,<<"html">>,[]}}],waiting,undefined,<<>>,false,waiting,[{<<"content-type">>,[<<"text">>,<<"/">>,<<"html">>,<<>>]}],<<>>,undefined},{state}}},[{cowboy_rest,process_content_type,3,[{file,"src/cowboy_rest.erl"},{line,780}]},{cowboy_protocol,execute,4,[{file,"src/cowboy_protocol.erl"},{line,529}]}]}
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Lo?c Hoguin
>> http://ninenines.eu
>
>
>
--
Lo?c Hoguin
http://ninenines.eu
From samuelrivas at gmail.com Tue Jul 8 13:49:35 2014
From: samuelrivas at gmail.com (Samuel)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 13:49:35 +0200
Subject: [99s-extend] [cowboy REST] returning {true, URL} to PUT
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <CAH2nEUgJj1f8_RnXqeKqB1tFaDh=qzztOo9XF94S9auQ93dskg@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAH2nEUi9qkU4tjeYMNzQeppJ4me3p3z2UPqfSB-dQ6G4x_ExyA@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
Message-ID: <CAH2nEUhEWO8AOHBa6WJJaN6jch5FzASAq7NUyQG3U9b4dKeTow@mail.gmail.com>
> Compare:
>
> PUT /some/resource/1234 -> no redirect needed
> POST /some/resource -> creates /some/resource/1234, redirects
>
> If /some/resource is a collection then PUT on that collection is supposed to
> replace it entirely.
Great, thanks for the explanation. I'll try to discuss that with the
authors of the API
--
Samuel
From paulo.ferraz.oliveira at gmail.com Tue Jul 8 15:17:32 2014
From: paulo.ferraz.oliveira at gmail.com (Paulo F. Oliveira)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 14:17:32 +0100
Subject: [99s-extend] HTTP Basic Auth base64 decode fails
Message-ID: <CA+dV7cS+1dfOHFZrMyognVSbVEdX45Rf264ndo0N8nCb1BmnmA@mail.gmail.com>
Hello, y'all.
I'm using HTTP Basic Auth in my API. While calling
cowboy_req:parse_header(<<"authorization>>", ... with an _invalid_
Authorization header such as "Authorization: Basic Test1" I get an error
500 back and an error log message on the server.
1. Is this the expected behavior? [if I understand correctly, my request is
going through authorization(UserPass, Type = <<"basic">>) and this has no
check for the string being correctly encoded]
2. what would be the best way to guard against this "error"?
Thanks.
- Paulo F. Oliveira
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ninenines.eu/archives/extend/attachments/20140708/35d8806d/attachment.html>
From essen at ninenines.eu Tue Jul 8 15:21:28 2014
From: essen at ninenines.eu (=?UTF-8?B?TG/Dr2MgSG9ndWlu?=)
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 15:21:28 +0200
Subject: [99s-extend] HTTP Basic Auth base64 decode fails
In-Reply-To: <CA+dV7cS+1dfOHFZrMyognVSbVEdX45Rf264ndo0N8nCb1BmnmA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+dV7cS+1dfOHFZrMyognVSbVEdX45Rf264ndo0N8nCb1BmnmA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Parsing of any header may crash. Some may also return an error tuple,
though that behavior slowly changes and it will always crash in 2.0. So
just wrap the call around a try/catch if you need to handle the error.
Note that at this exact moment I'm working on returning 400 instead of
500 automatically when parsing headers end up crashing (and possibly
other situations later on).
On 07/08/2014 03:17 PM, Paulo F. Oliveira wrote:
> Hello, y'all.
>
> I'm using HTTP Basic Auth in my API. While calling
> cowboy_req:parse_header(<<"authorization>>", ... with an _invalid_
> Authorization header such as "Authorization: Basic Test1" I get an error
> 500 back and an error log message on the server.
>
> 1. Is this the expected behavior? [if I understand correctly, my request
> is going through authorization(UserPass, Type = <<"basic">>) and this
> has no check for the string being correctly encoded]
>
> 2. what would be the best way to guard against this "error"?
>
> Thanks.
>
> - Paulo F. Oliveira
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Extend mailing list
> Extend at lists.ninenines.eu
> https://lists.ninenines.eu/listinfo/extend
>
--
Lo?c Hoguin
http://ninenines.eu
From paulo.ferraz.oliveira at gmail.com Tue Jul 8 15:25:58 2014
From: paulo.ferraz.oliveira at gmail.com (Paulo F. Oliveira)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 14:25:58 +0100
Subject: [99s-extend] HTTP Basic Auth base64 decode fails
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <CA+dV7cS+1dfOHFZrMyognVSbVEdX45Rf264ndo0N8nCb1BmnmA@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
Message-ID: <CA+dV7cRxf-uKJKx-xPhKcm6TXXKLc4H3OVOC2GVQy58V5nASzg@mail.gmail.com>
Great, thanks.
I saw some changes "from 422 to 400" in recent versions (PUT and POST).
Thanks for the heads up. As long as they're document, no harm shall come of
these changes.
In any case, if I see it happen very often live I'll "protect" it agains
the _bad_ header :-).
Cheers.
- Paulo F. Oliveira
On 8 July 2014 14:21, Lo?c Hoguin <essen at ninenines.eu> wrote:
> Parsing of any header may crash. Some may also return an error tuple,
> though that behavior slowly changes and it will always crash in 2.0. So
> just wrap the call around a try/catch if you need to handle the error.
>
> Note that at this exact moment I'm working on returning 400 instead of 500
> automatically when parsing headers end up crashing (and possibly other
> situations later on).
>
>
> On 07/08/2014 03:17 PM, Paulo F. Oliveira wrote:
>
>> Hello, y'all.
>>
>> I'm using HTTP Basic Auth in my API. While calling
>> cowboy_req:parse_header(<<"authorization>>", ... with an _invalid_
>> Authorization header such as "Authorization: Basic Test1" I get an error
>> 500 back and an error log message on the server.
>>
>> 1. Is this the expected behavior? [if I understand correctly, my request
>> is going through authorization(UserPass, Type = <<"basic">>) and this
>> has no check for the string being correctly encoded]
>>
>> 2. what would be the best way to guard against this "error"?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> - Paulo F. Oliveira
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Extend mailing list
>> Extend at lists.ninenines.eu
>> https://lists.ninenines.eu/listinfo/extend
>>
>>
> --
> Lo?c Hoguin
> http://ninenines.eu
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ninenines.eu/archives/extend/attachments/20140708/497ef9a1/attachment.html>
From chaehb at gmail.com Sat Jul 26 09:06:15 2014
From: chaehb at gmail.com (chaehb)
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 16:06:15 +0900
Subject: [99s-extend] couldn't quit in Erlang 17.1
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Hi, everybody.
After Erlang updated to 17.1,
when I run q(). command on erlang console, cowboy couldn't quitted but print series of messages..
(after ok signal printed)
?...
=ERROR REPORT==== 26-Jul-2014::15:23:33 ===
Error in process <0.334.0> on node ?...my node name...' with exit value: {{case_clause,{error,closed}},[{ranch_acceptor,loop,3,[{file,"src/ranch_acceptor.erl"},{line,28}]}]}
?.
Before erlang updated (in 17.0), application could be normally quitted exactly same codes and environments.
This is only appeared when I only use ssl(https).
But when use only http with same dispatch rules, cowboy normally quitted.
What?s wrong? or Normal ?
my environment :
OS : Mac OS X Mavricks
Erlang/OTP : 17.1 from Homebrew
release tool : relx
Cowboy and others : latest
From essen at ninenines.eu Sun Jul 27 11:25:50 2014
From: essen at ninenines.eu (=?UTF-8?B?TG/Dr2MgSG9ndWlu?=)
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 11:25:50 +0200
Subject: [99s-extend] couldn't quit in Erlang 17.1
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Does it happen with ssl_hello_world?
On 07/26/2014 09:06 AM, chaehb wrote:
> Hi, everybody.
>
> After Erlang updated to 17.1,
> when I run q(). command on erlang console, cowboy couldn't quitted but print series of messages..
>
> (after ok signal printed)
>
> ?...
> =ERROR REPORT==== 26-Jul-2014::15:23:33 ===
> Error in process <0.334.0> on node ?...my node name...' with exit value: {{case_clause,{error,closed}},[{ranch_acceptor,loop,3,[{file,"src/ranch_acceptor.erl"},{line,28}]}]}
> ?.
>
> Before erlang updated (in 17.0), application could be normally quitted exactly same codes and environments.
>
> This is only appeared when I only use ssl(https).
> But when use only http with same dispatch rules, cowboy normally quitted.
>
> What?s wrong? or Normal ?
>
> my environment :
> OS : Mac OS X Mavricks
> Erlang/OTP : 17.1 from Homebrew
> release tool : relx
> Cowboy and others : latest
> _______________________________________________
> Extend mailing list
> Extend at lists.ninenines.eu
> https://lists.ninenines.eu/listinfo/extend
>
--
Lo?c Hoguin
http://ninenines.eu
