Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > On 3/7/06, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Feh. No way. The argument would hold true if mod_jk > > did not provide just the sort of control that you say > > we shouldn't provide to users/admins, and control that > > *varies* from setup to setup. > > Why must we offer a shiny knob that the average admin will have no > real hope of understanding why it is there or when to enable it? >
If we have any intent for people to migrate from mod_jk to mod_proxy_ajp, we should provide compatible capability. Anyone who uses or admins or supports mod_jk knows that some people need +FlushPackets and some don't. :) > > Until the protocol is fixed, we should do the right thing - and that > means we shouldn't ever allow the entire response to be spooled in > memory. -- justin > Which we don't do. -- =========================================================================== Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball."
