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 Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:12:52 GMT

On Oct 9, 2007, at 1:49 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 9, 2007, at 12:40 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I might be confused here, but if the response is forced 1.0,
>>>> then there are no keepalives in which case we want to *force*
>>>> keepalives off.
>>>
>>> Actually two different settings, no?  1.0 supported explicit  
>>> keepalives.
>>>
>>
>> But the force disabling is the main intent of the implementation,  
>> iirc.
>> ie: they didn't behave right with Connection: Keep-Alive
>
> isn't there a connection-close variable trigger that should be used
> to enforce that?
>

All I'm saying is that, iirc, the intent of force-response-1.0 is
to force a 1.0 response and disable keepalives... it was designed
to work around buggy browsers that had problems with 1.1 features,
including wonky 1.0-type keepalives.

If someone wants to create force-response-1.0-with-keepalives
that does what force-response-1.0 does but allows for the potential
of keepalives, then I'm fine with that. But changing how
force-response-1.0 behaves is *sure* to cause problems for those
who depend on the current behavior.


Mime
View raw message