httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Erenkrantz <jus...@erenkrantz.com>
Subject Re: AW: AW: AW: 2.2 mod_http_proxy and "partial" pages
Date Tue, 03 Jan 2006 15:48:09 GMT
On 1/3/06, Ruediger Pluem <rpluem@apache.org> wrote:
> >>2. Proposal
> >>If a subrequest has a broken backend do not sent the error bucket. Only
> >>set r->no_cache to ensure that this subrequest response does not get
> >>cached.
> >
> >
> > I think we still need to ensure that an error bucket is sent too, right?
> > Otherwise, the connection will be reused - what am I missing?  -- justin
>
> No, you are not missing anything. The question to me was: Do we need to close
> a keepalive on the main request just because a subrequest failed in the middle
> of the response?
> Or to be more precise: Should the behaviour to cut off the keepalive be the default
> behaviour in such cases with the chance for subrequest creators to remove the error
> bucket and to make the response cacheable again or should it be the other way round
> that the subrequest creator is reponsible for preventing caching and closing the
> keepalive by sending the error bucket by himself if he thinks that this is needed?
> While writing this I personally come to the conclusion that the 1. proposal
> (sending the error bucket) is saver as a default behaviour.

Oh, I didn't realize you intended it as an either/or scenario.  Then,
yes, I agree that #1 is correct.  =)  -- justin

Mime
View raw message