Hello! On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 04:20:29PM +0100, Roberto De Ioris wrote:
> > > > > 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 Committed, thnx. -- Maxim Dounin http://nginx.com/support.html _______________________________________________ nginx mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx
