httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <>
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:
>>>> 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

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- 
*itself* but rather "when" it's applied. So the fact that force- 
forcibly disables keepalives is something that's been with us for ~10

View raw message