Mailing-List: contact dev-help@tomcat.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Tomcat Developers List" <dev@tomcat.apache.org>
Message-ID: <4520F6FF.1050106@apache.org>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 13:24:47 +0200
From: Mladen Turk <mturk@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tomcat Developers List <dev@tomcat.apache.org>
Subject: [VOTE] Split soTimeout to soTimeout and keepAliveTimeout
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi all,

I would like to propose a simple vote on the thing I consider
as very important. It's probably the first vote ever done for
the commited code, but the reasons are known for the folks reading
tomcat dev list.

The things we have right now for dealing with Keep-Alive is
dependent only on the soTimeout.

I propose that we split that to the real soTimeout which is the
timeout between two consecutive read() on http request and the
additional keepAliveTimeout that will be used for determining the
timeout between two requests.

Few reason why we should need those timeouts separately
configured is:

1. Why not, if its possible without breaking current config ?
2. If the timeout between two request is lower then soTimeout it
    will allow to have much higher number of slow clients
3. If the timeout between two requests is higher then soTimeout
    it will allow to deal with slow clients sending one byte at the
    the time with the unacceptable rate.

So, I'll just throw a vote here:

[ ] I'm for that proposal
[ ] I'm against that proposal
[ ] I don't care

Of course, there is always an option to have an veto.

As many of you already know, the code itself was already
in the SVN, but it was reverted.

Regards,
Mladen.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org