> > Ok, so the next question is: any specific reason to exclude normal > CGI responses with "Status" as in your patch? > > I in fact don't like the idea of supporting http-like answers with > status like from CGI-like protocols, correct way is to use > "Status" header. Not sure why Manlio introduced it at all, > probably due to some compatibility concerns (and due to the fact > that SCGI specification explicitly refuses to specify response > format).
Honestly i do not remember why Manlio added support for nph (but i have added it to uWSGI SCGI parser too, so in my subconsciuous there should be a good reason :P) regarding your updated patch is better for sure -- Roberto De Ioris http://unbit.it _______________________________________________ nginx mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx
