Sean Gabriel Heacock wrote: > On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 15:30 +0300, Janno Sannik wrote: > >> Well. This our Keep-Alive patch for now. >> Needs testing and suggestions, but it works for now. >> > > Sweet! Unfortunately I'm about to go on vacation, so it'll be a couple > weeks before I get a chance to test it. > > allready running it on my production environment :) >> We are returning 408 HTTP_REQUEST_TIMEOUT if anybody tries such a >> request. Don't know if it's right thing to do? >> Or we could also just close the connection. I don't know how browsers >> react, since haven't found any "smart" ones. >> > > What happens on a 408, doesn't the user get an error page? I'm not sure > what the proper way to tell the browser to retry a request... I have a > feeling that simply closing the connection would just result in a blank > page. Maybe if we sent a 302 to redirect them back to the same URL, > then close the connection so they have to get a new one... that might > still break a POST though, but maybe the newer code 307 would handle > that. According to wikipedia: > Well I don't know actually what happens, since so far we have reproduced it only with specially written command line utility and it get's back 408 error. I'm gone test a bunch of browsers to test it if any of them like to break Keep-Alive. I know that firefox does more than one connection retry in case of problems, but we can't generalize by using one browser. Error 307 seems good. I'll look into it more detail. > 307 Temporary Redirect (since HTTP/1.1) > > In this occasion, the request should be repeated with another > URI, but future requests can still be directed to the original > URI. In contrast to 303, the request method should not be > changed when reissuing the original request. For instance, a > POST request must be repeated using another POST request. > >
_______________________________________________ Peruser mailing list [email protected] http://www.telana.com/mailman/listinfo/peruser
