Alexei Kosut liltingly intones:
>
> On Mon, 1 Jul 1996, Chuck Murcko wrote:
>
> > > On a server running b3-dev I'm being hassled to disable keepalive to
> > > keep the windoze users from seeing dumb things... this is of course a
> > > poor solution.
> > >
> > There's a problem. It involves keepalive. The clients under Windoze don't
> > seem to catch the connection close of one or more items transferred.
> > Other servers don't do this.
>
> Other servers *don't* do this? I asked about this a bit ago, and no one
> responded, so I had assumed it was something all servers did. I assume you
> specifically checked these servers and the pages you were accessing to
> make sure they were enabling keepalive? And that the bug is
> well-reproducable enough with Apache that you can be sure it doesn't show
> up on other servers? (Ben tells us letting the Keepalive time out, then
> reloading the page will reproduce this)
>
I'm gonna do some experimenting tonight (for as long as I can stay awake)
with the durations and allowed # of connects and a Windoze platform.
1.1b5 and Win 3.1. If I don't get anything there, I know I can get it to
happen on a machine at work using Win 95.
I haven't been real available lately, apologies. And when I have been,
I've been *really* toasted.
> > It'd be embarrasing to release with this one still in there.
>
> Agreed. If it really does not show up with other servers that do
> keep-alive, I will -1 any Apache release that has KeepAlive enabled by
> default until we fix it (since that means it's fixable, even though it's
> a Windows bug). With Windows being the most popular OS in the
> browser market, I don't think its appropriate for the most popular server
> (35% according to the July Netcraft - 15 point lead over NCSA) to not work
> right with it.
>
> Doesn't that make sense?
>
Sure does.
chuck
Chuck Murcko N2K Inc. Wayne PA chuck@telebase.com
And now, on a lighter note:
They're only trying to make me LOOK paranoid!
|