Message-ID: <335810F9.FA60E76E@topsail.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 20:25:29 -0400
From: Chuck Murcko <chuck@topsail.org>
Organization: The Topsail Group
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR#232: work around netscape header problem
References: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970418174445.14379A-100000@valis.worldgate.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

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.

A long time ago. It will fix it, but the resulting extra packet really
screws network performance, especially on small keepalive transactions.
-- 
chuck
Chuck Murcko
The Topsail Group, West Chester PA USA
chuck@topsail.org