On Wednesday 10 October 2007 16:55:03 Jim Jagielski wrote: > On Oct 10, 2007, at 8:38 AM, Aleksey Midenkov wrote: > > > > The behavior is wrong since 2001-03-16 and since then it *sure* > > made and keeps > > making confusion. About 6 years. > > Whatever. I would for sure wager that if this is changed, people will > see a SLEW of incoming reports that "Hey, I switched from 2.2.6 > to 2.2.7 and I'm seeing this change"... I am also sure that wrong or > not, there are a lot of people who have either worked around this > or are depending on it, and cutting them off at the knees with > no workaround is hardly something responsible developers should > do. > > I really don't care all that much, but I tend to recall that we > have at least *some* responsibility to our userbase out there, and > fixing something to help out one set, while at the same time ignoring > the impacts on another set is foolish.
Of course it would be foolish. Actually there must be a sensible tradeoff between correctness and backward compatibility. And of course there must be an alternative for those who depend on wrong behaviour. I think in our case the quantity of those who wins from such behaviour is much smaller than of those who loses. In fact, I doubt that there will be numerous complaints if any will be at all. And resolution for those who will suffer can be SetEnvIf Request_Protocol HTTP/1.0 nokeepalive No unnecessary CPU processing for majority. I am sorry if my persistence can appear as a pressure to someone. But I really think this is the best solution. :)
