Hi Laurie, On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 04:45:33PM +0100, Laurie Young wrote: > Hi Willy > > I am sure I want the client timeout :-) > > One hostname is for normal http connections, which should disconnect after a > short period of client inactivity. > > The other hostname is for websockets, which need to be held open even if the > client (or server for that matter) sends no data for a long period of time.
I don't completely agree. If you consider that the client timeout you want for websockets is fine and cannot cause any sort of trouble with clients that disconnect from the net in a dirty way, then there is no reason you cannot use the same timeout for the other HTTP connections if they come from the same set of clients, which is apparently the case since you want to have the same frontend. And if you consider that the websockets timeout is too large for regular HTTP connections (eg: because it may needlessly eat resource with some problematic clients), then it is too large for the websockets too for the exact same reason. Willy
