httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <>
Subject Re: lingering_close
Date Sun, 02 Feb 1997 02:04:43 GMT
Marc Slemko wrote:
> >  o That as long as there are no problem or hiccups during PUTS
> >    or persisticonns (my word :) ) l_c() did absolutely nothing
> >    and so there was no difference between having it and not
> Incorrect.  There are normal cases during the operation of persistent
> connections where the server wants to close the connection.  One example 
> is a server timeout.

If there server timesouts, it means that it either hasn't rec'd any
data in awhile, or else it has listened to the maximum persiticonns
that it wants. In the first case, there's no data to read. In the
2nd it doesn't seem to make sense to me that the server must
contibue listening to requests just to ignore them... Maybe I'm
missing the point though, it certainly wouldn't be the 1st time :)

> Another is any type of request for which it
> can't handle persistent connections such as any HTTP/1.0 keepalive
> request which doesn't have a content-length, such as SSIs).  _ANY_
> time the server closes the persistent connection this possibility
> is there simply because the client expects the connection to be
> there.

Shouldn't the client check? Or do clients assume infinite numbers
of persisticonns?

> Before this was a much simpler problem because the client
> wouldn't be sending any more data anyway.  With persistent connections,
> it can.  If it doesn't get a response to a request, it should resend
> it in another connection, no problems.  If it gets an error, however,
> it should whine.

      Jim Jagielski            |       jaguNET Access Services           |
                  "Not the Craw... the CRAW!"

View raw message