httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dean Gaudet <>
Subject Re: [PATCH] PR#232: work around netscape header problem
Date Sat, 19 Apr 1997 00:21:54 GMT
A flush does appear to work, but I will -1 any such change.  This would
defeat all the work I did in january to eliminate all of our buffer
flushes and make us more network friendly.  That stuff benefits even
non-pipelined browsers.  It's cheaper to emit the 20 or 30 extra bytes in
one larger packet than it is to send two packets. 

If the other end isn't responding fast enough it might end up with both
the write()s coalesced anyhow and tickle the bug.  TCP doesn't preserve
write() boundaries.


On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, Marc Slemko wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > After thinking about this a while, I've changed my mind and now believe
> > that we need to fix Netscape's bug for them.  The reasons are that the
> > bug is non-intuitive to non-programmers, we'll end up getting blamed
> > for it anyway, I have a feeling that Netscape won't get around to
> > fixing it in 4.0, and my fix has no impact unless the headers are
> > exactly 256 or 257 bytes long (the bug manifests in both cases).
> Will it not work to just add a bflush() instead of the extra header
> line?  Don't have time to test right now, but from what I recall it
> should and it seems like a better workaround to me, although not as
> fun as making headers saying how lame Netscape is.  <g>
> Sorry if this was discussed and I missed it.

View raw message