httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Gomez <hgo...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [PATCH] mod_deflate extensions
Date Tue, 19 Nov 2002 07:04:38 GMT
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
 > At 02:42 AM 11/11/2002, Henri Gomez wrote:
 >
 >>Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
 >>
 >>>--On Friday, November 8, 2002 5:52 PM +0100 Henri Gomez 
<hgomez@apache.org> wrote:
 >>>
 >>>
 >>>>Some questions about mod_deflate :
 >>>>
 >>>>1) Why this module is not enabled by default built ?
 >>>>      compression should be on to meet HTTP recommandations ?
 >>>
 >>>No, that's not part of the HTTP specification per se.
 >>
 >>I didn't agree, they are covered in rfc2616 :
 >>
 >>http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.11
 >
 >
 > What Justin TRIED to say is that rfc2616 neither recommends nor requires
 > gzip compression.  It simply defines the transmission of 
transfer-encoding
 > and content-encoding headers and defines the gzip method amoungst
 > others.

Agreed

 > Justin disagreed (and I concur) that there is no such thing as meeting
 > some "HTTP recommandations" from RFC 2616, since the RFC makes
 > no such recommendation.

OK

 > However, I agree with you that we should make it trivial for the admin
 > to enable this module.

When you drop the network bandwith by 30 to 70% factor, you make your IT
managers happy since they save money and you make end-users very happy
since they feel you application is faster.

So adding mod_deflate to the default distribution, under control of
configure which will verify if zlib is available on the system to enable
it, shouldn't hurt.

More users will use mod_deflate, more chance to see remaining bugs
discovered and fixed.

Regards




Mime
View raw message