housekeeping: Add housekeeping for connections #1641
Conversation
Some thoughts so far:
|
Naming: "curl_conn_upkeep" has been discussed on IRC and could be a good option. |
I have added a function for the multi API and have it running. Also setting for keep-alive interval time. Thanks to this work by @maxdymond. @bagder: Can you explain little more your second point above and how it should work? |
@vpeter4: I seem to have lost your patch; any chance you could link it here please? |
You mean https://pastebin.com/ZrNwwEa8 ? It is everything I used (it includes your changes too). |
@vpeter4 Perfect, thanks! |
I freshened this pull request. @bagder: regarding your comments:
|
856cfe1
to
edac466
Sure, I have no problems with taking baby steps. We can take that on in a follow-up work.
I was primarily thinking of the mandatory pieces: a man page for the function and setopt that describes what they do and why someone would want to use them, and these man pages should ideally include at least a small example snippets (as all our man pages should). Of course I would consider a separate example code for docs/examples/ a great addition as well. Supposedly we would add at least one test case for this feature anyone so code has to be written that uses it, which then could be the basis for an example... The example doesn't have to be included in the original PR either, we can work on that separately after the feature lands. |
115aac3
to
552c355
|
Docs updated for 7.62.0. |
Rebased for 7.62.0. I set the dates as 31/Oct as I believe that's the correct date! |
Add functionality so that protocols can do custom keepalive on their connections, when an external API function is called. Add docs for the new options in 7.62.0
Thanks! |
Add functionality so that protocols can do custom keepalive on their connections, when an external API function is called. Add docs for the new options in 7.62.0 Closes curl#1641
Add functionality so that protocols can do custom keepalive on their connections, when an external API function is called.
I'm not expecting this pull request to make it in as is - I've created this to discuss the direction going forward.