Samuel Andrew McIntyre wrote: > Is it really necessary to reinvent keep-alive at a higher level? Why not > just decide that 'X' (m)secs without response indicates that a failure > has occurred of enough significance to cancel a pending transaction? And > if the value of 'X' is variable, that the application developer writing > the client/server application can decide what the appropriate value of > 'X' should be?
Well, there alre legal reasons why client wouldnt talk for a long time. For example, having a connection pool, and web application not being accessed too much. These "legal" states are usually when no transaction is active on connection - maybe we could modify the timeouts to reflect that (allow client to keep quiet when no transaction is active for indefinite time, while be more aggressive in checking clients presence/timeouts when transaction is active and resources are being held by it. Jan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
