Re: [privoxy-users] Configuration changes (was: Allowing popups.)

[Lee <le...@gm...>]

On 8/27/10, Fabian Keil <fk...@fa...> wrote:
> Lee <le...@gm...> wrote:
>
>> On 8/26/10, Fabian Keil <fk...@fa...> wrote:
>> > Lee <le...@gm...> wrote:
>
>> >> You shouldn't have to restart Privoxy for any changes to take effect.
>> >> emphasis on =shouldn't= ... there's been a few times I've had to
>> >> restart Privoxy on Vista to get changes to take effect.  I haven't
>> >> been able to figure out the problem & I haven't seen that problem on
>> >> WinXP
>> >
>> > Privoxy checks the config files once per connection and many changes
>> > only apply to the following one. Nowadays the client can make multiple
>> > requests through the same connection so Privoxy will not notice
>> > configuration changes until a new connection is opened.
>> >
>> > Do you thing this could explain the behaviour you were seeing?
>>
>> Yes, as long as looking at http://config.privoxy.org/show-url-info
>> and/or http://config.privoxy.org/show-status?file=filter&index=1
>> doesn't count as a new connection.
>
> As of jcc.c,v 1.315, requests to the CGI interface can
> reuse the connection.
>
>> I was thinking it's a Vista specific thing because
>> 1. I've never had (noticed?) that problem on XP
>
> jcc.c,v 1.315 has been committed after the 3.0.16
> release. Maybe you're simply using Vista more often
> than XP?

I do tend to do most 'development' work on my Vista machine since it's
so much faster than the XP, so yes - that could explain why I haven't
noticed the problem on XP.

>> 2. Even after verifying that my changes showed up in
>> http://config.privoxy.org/show-status?file=filter&index=1  Privoxy
>> still acted like it hasn't processed the changes.
>
> To serve that URL Privoxy will always read the file from disk
> (without parsing it), while a Privoxy thread will use whatever
> filters were available when the client connection came in.
>
> After a filter file change it's thus possible for multiple
> threads to have a different opinion of what filters to use.
>
> I assume this could be viewed as non-obvious behaviour
> so maybe we should simply change this.

Thast would be nice, yes :)

Lee