I've checked the Netscaler and HAProxy docs, this appears to be artifact of the HAProxy implementation (inability to support keep-alive). For a cloud operator that chooses Netscaler or F5 for load balancing, this won't make any sense.
On 10/3/13 12:55 PM, "Daan Hoogland" <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Chip Childers ><chip.child...@sungard.com>wrote: > >> a model for extensions like that makes perfect sense. > > > >This model sound fine indeed. It makes no sense for httpClose however. > >Here's my concern: >So when an early adapter is implemented and the rest of the market comes >to >their senses, how do we migrate without running into migration/upgrade >problems? >httpClose is a flag controlling connection pooling. I probably choose the >wrong name. It is something that any implementation will support or should >have supported already. Am I going to implement it as a key/value now to >later implemented as I have done anyway? I don't like this idea. > >Don't get me wrong the pattern described by you guys is fine in some >situations. I don't think it is applicable to this feature. > >regards, >Daan
