Bugs item #3579151, was opened at 2012-10-22 08:40
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by bagder
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100976&aid=3579151&group_id=976

Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
including the initial issue submission, for this request,
not just the latest update.
Category: name resolving/DNS
Group: None
>Status: Pending
>Resolution: Invalid
Priority: 5
Private: No
Submitted By: Philippe Demange (phdems)
Assigned to: Daniel Stenberg (bagder)
Summary: Better return COULDNT_RESOLVE_HOST iso TIMEDOUT ?

Initial Comment:
Hi,

running on Debian stable, and testing resolution errors, I got a CURLE_OPERATION_TIMEDOUT if I use the opt CURLOPT_TIMEOUT, but the error CURLE_COULDNT_RESOLVE_HOST if I don't use it, after 63 seconds.
Wouldn't it be better to return CURLE_COULDNT_RESOLVE_HOST in both cases, firstly to keep coherency between these two similar use cases, and secondly to allow a more precise diagnostic ?

Attached is a patch for that puspose.

Many thanks in advance.
Regards.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Comment By: Daniel Stenberg (bagder)
Date: 2012-10-29 14:49

Message:
While I appreciate your line of thinking, I've been faced with the complete
opposite in the past and we have since then landed with this approach. Now
you at least know that your timeout caused the error, as if it had returned
a resolve error you couldn't have known if it was truly not resolving or a
result of your timeout.

I don't plan to modify this return code, sorry.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100976&aid=3579151&group_id=976
Received on 2012-10-29