[erlang-questions] Re: ssl and {active, once} - bug?

[Roberto Ostinelli]

hi!

>> but i've decided to go for the httpd
>> option in ssl.
>
> Sorry I do not  understand what you mean by that?

i meant that i'm handling the switch myself to httph, so patch is
currenlty not needed.

>
> Are you writing your own http server? Could you explain more what yoy
> are trying to do?

i was adding SSL support to misultin http://code.google.com/p/misultin/w/list

as said, what i'm still missing is some kind of response in the case:

. a http request is done on a https server [currently, it timeouts]
. a https request is done on a http server [currently, it shuts down
the connection].

it is not clear how to provide some kind of http response on a SSL
socket, since the socket is not created unless SSL is used [and thus,
it timeouts].

in the same way, a non-SSL socket will simply do not understand
incoming tcp data which is part of the SSL negotiation [and thus, only
available option is to send a 403 error which is of course
mis-interpreted by the browser which initiated a SSL negitiation.

hope this is more clear :)

r.