httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: AP_CONN_CLOSE on force-response-1.0
Date Wed, 10 Oct 2007 12:55:03 GMT

On Oct 10, 2007, at 8:38 AM, Aleksey Midenkov wrote:

> On Wednesday 10 October 2007 16:25:58 Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> On Oct 10, 2007, at 6:01 AM, Aleksey Midenkov wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 09 October 2007 22:49:38 Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>>      http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=78967
>>>>
>>>> That's a 1997 date, btw :)
>>>
>>> There were no word about broken browsers in that commit, only about
>>> broken
>>> proxy. ;)
>>>
>>> On Tuesday 09 October 2007 22:41:19 Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>> I can't see changing the behavior now, after all these years.
>>>> If we want to create a variant that maintains the feasibility of
>>>> keepalives, then a big +1 for that, but it should be a new
>>>> envvar, not changing the userland experience of an existing one...
>>>
>>> And if browser asks explicitly for Keep-Alive, why not to satisfy
>>> it? You
>>> should keep in mind that implicit behaviour is 'Connection: Close'
>>> for 1.0
>>> protocol. I think, new envvar will add unnecessary complexity to
>>> configuration and redundant processing to servers...
>>
>> And I think changing the behavior of an existing envvar from
>> how it's been used for ~10years is *sure* to create *more* confusion.
>
> The behavior is wrong since 2001-03-16 and since then it *sure*  
> made and keeps
> making confusion. About 6 years.
>

Whatever. I would for sure wager that if this is changed, people will
see a SLEW of incoming reports that "Hey, I switched from 2.2.6
to 2.2.7 and I'm seeing this change"... I am also sure that wrong or
not, there are a lot of people who have either worked around this
or are depending on it, and cutting them off at the knees with
no workaround is hardly something responsible developers should
do.

I really don't care all that much, but I tend to recall that we
have at least *some* responsibility to our userbase out there, and
fixing something to help out one set, while at the same time ignoring
the impacts on another set is foolish.

BTW: The rev you refer to doesn't change the behavior of force- 
response-1.0
*itself* but rather "when" it's applied. So the fact that force- 
response-1.0
forcibly disables keepalives is something that's been with us for ~10
years.


Mime
View raw message