Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Oct 4, 2009, at 2:38 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote: > >> On Sunday 04 October 2009, Jim Jagielski wrote: >>> Personally, I'd like to see this as part of the actual >>> code core, where we have several Timeouts, eg: >>> >>> Timeout 30 5 10 2 >>> >>> which define timeout as now, timeout before 1st byte, timeout >>> between bytes timeout after etc...
>> And I would prefer several config directives instead of having to >> remember which value in Timeout means what. >> > > Well, I'm not a big fan of directive creep, but I see your point > and agree with it in a general sense. I agree with Stefan, "30 5 10 2" is nonsensical to the casual administrator. But going to your point, Jim, perhaps using some sort of Timeout keepalive=5 syntax might be good? Directives are in a hash, and only evaluated for .htaccess at runtime, so it's not the place to focus our optimization energies.
