[Libwebsockets] Denying a Connection

Andy Green andy at warmcat.com
Sat Apr 14 15:04:35 CEST 2018



On April 14, 2018 9:00:31 PM GMT+08:00, Mooki Moo <mookimoo73 at gmail.com> wrote:
>I am well aware that it is my problem, but I see no harm in seeking
>the opinion of others. I wasn't asking you to solve it, as was only
>looking to see if you or others reading the list had an opinion on
>what I suggested, nothing more, nothing less.

Looks like a 'no' on the backrub then.

Patches remain welcome.

-Andy

>Bill
>
>
>
>On 14 April 2018 at 13:34, Andy Green <andy at warmcat.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 04/14/2018 07:54 PM, Mooki Moo wrote:
>>>
>>> Sorry Andy, but I'm confused by your comment, can you explain
>please.
>>>
>>> I presented what I thought were sensible options as a possible
>>> solutions to my issue, in the hope that someone might have expressed
>>> an opinion of their viability to solve it.
>>
>>
>> It's not that complicated... your problem is your problem.
>>
>> If lws should do something to improve, well, send patches.
>>
>> Otherwise, you are in the really strange position of having a problem
>and
>> asking someone you never met to run around taking care of it for you.
>>
>> If this works both ways and you are available to cut my lawn or rub
>my back,
>> please let me know.
>>
>> -Andy
>>
>>
>>> --
>>> Bill
>>>
>>> On 14 April 2018 at 11:40, Andy Green <andy at warmcat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 04/14/2018 06:39 PM, Mooki Moo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That was quick, thank you.
>>>>>
>>>>> I appreciate and unserstand the pupae / butterfly analogy,  but
>due to
>>>>> the fact that I know I can expect multiple clients from the same
>IP
>>>>> (NAT) from my understanding of the documentation the
>>>>> LWS_WITH_PEER_LIMITS approach will not work for me. So I need a
>>>>> solution that will allow multiple connections from the same IP but
>>>>> only allow one from a distinct user.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I see it I have a couple of options; the first is to drop the
>>>>> existing connection, and allow the new one to proceed. Or mark the
>>>>> request to be dropped then drop it via the
>LWS_CALLBACK_ESTABLISHED
>>>>> reason.
>>>>>
>>>>> Either way I should be able to inform the user via the
>>>>> lws_close_reason as I already have a connection for scenario A I
>can
>>>>> provide a reason as to why the connection was dropped, and the
>same
>>>>> for scenario B as the connection will have metamorphosed in to a
>wss
>>>>> connection at the LWS_CALLBACK_ESTABLISHED point.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does this make sense?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Everything makes sense except why any of what "you need a solution
>for"
>>>> is
>>>> my problem.
>>>>
>>>> -Andy



More information about the Libwebsockets mailing list