[email protected] writes: > The short answer is that serf communicates using HTTP/1.1 (defined by > RFC 2616, back in June 1999).
And it's not implemented everywhere and we have to take that into account. > With some work, we could support HTTP/1.0. The biggest problem here > would be needing to pre- compute the size of the request (and use > Content-Length: rather than chunked requests), which could result in > using a temporary file on disk in some cases. Where we know the > request is size-bounded, then we could use a memory buffer. To get > really spiffy, the new "memory buffer, then spill to disk" > functionality (developed for issue 3888) could be used to avoid the > disk in some (many?) request scenarios. > > (that buffer/spill code is destined for libsvn_subr in the trunk line > of development, for use on the server-side, per a request from > cmpilato) So what is the benefit to users of 1.7 of chunked encoding? There is a very obvious drawback in that serf fails to work through some proxies and the solution in 1.7 is "use neon". -- Philip
