couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Marek Kowalski (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (COUCHDB-1777) 409 response vs persitent connection
Date Fri, 26 Apr 2013 14:50:18 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1777?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13642909#comment-13642909
] 

Marek Kowalski commented on COUCHDB-1777:
-----------------------------------------

Again I think its a correct guess. I think so, because I was wondering how is it possible
that I hit the time window so easily. It would be explained if CouchDB is awaiting for more
bytes to come, and my client is sending new request lines instead.
                
> 409 response vs persitent connection
> ------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: COUCHDB-1777
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1777
>             Project: CouchDB
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Database Core
>            Reporter: Marek Kowalski
>
> CouchDB closes the persistent client connection after responding with 409 code. This
behavior is not necessarily against the RFC 2616, although it makes it more complicated to
use pipelining. 
> If its really necessary to close the connection, it would be nice to at least put the
"Connection: close" in the response headers. If the connection can be closed without informing
client that this is going to happen, the client might start writing the new request to the
connection. Again, according RFC 2616, this situation should be handled by the client, although
the header could be added "as a courtesy".

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

Mime
View raw message