On Saturday 13 October 2007 02:21:17 Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Oct 12, 2007, at 12:25 AM, Aleksey Midenkov wrote:
> > On Thursday 11 October 2007 21:57:21 Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> >> On Oct 11, 2007, at 12:55 AM, Aleksey Midenkov wrote:
> This is all irrelevant. No current installation shou
On Oct 12, 2007, at 12:25 AM, Aleksey Midenkov wrote:
On Thursday 11 October 2007 21:57:21 Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Oct 11, 2007, at 12:55 AM, Aleksey Midenkov wrote:
This is all irrelevant. No current installation should need any of
those env variables set. They exist solely for working ar
On Thursday 11 October 2007 21:57:21 Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Oct 11, 2007, at 12:55 AM, Aleksey Midenkov wrote:
> >> This is all irrelevant. No current installation should need any of
> >> those env variables set. They exist solely for working around old
> >> versions of old clients that no l
On Oct 11, 2007, at 12:55 AM, Aleksey Midenkov wrote:
This is all irrelevant. No current installation should need any of
those env variables set. They exist solely for working around old
versions of old clients that no longer exist on the net.
Not all... We need mod_proxy responding exactly w
On Wednesday 10 October 2007 18:46:15 Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Or how about leaving the vast majority of the public completely
> unaffected and creating a new envvar for those who have problems
> with the 10 year old implementation...
>
> If, however, you come up with a complete patch, including docs
On Wednesday 10 October 2007 23:44:03 Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Oct 10, 2007, at 7:08 AM, Aleksey Midenkov wrote:
> > On Wednesday 10 October 2007 18:04:47 Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >> On Oct 10, 2007, at 9:38 AM, Aleksey Midenkov wrote:
> >>> And resolution for those who will suffer can be
> >>>
>
On Oct 10, 2007, at 7:08 AM, Aleksey Midenkov wrote:
On Wednesday 10 October 2007 18:04:47 Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Oct 10, 2007, at 9:38 AM, Aleksey Midenkov wrote:
And resolution for those who will suffer can be
SetEnvIf Request_Protocol HTTP/1.0 nokeepalive
No unnecessary CPU processing f
Aleksey Midenkov wrote:
The behavior is wrong since 2001-03-16 and since then it *sure* made and keeps
making confusion. About 6 years.
If so (making confusion), we should see a long history of bugzilla
tickets with an impressive CC list on them. Are there? This is not a
rhethorical question,
On Oct 10, 2007, at 10:08 AM, Aleksey Midenkov wrote:
On Wednesday 10 October 2007 18:04:47 Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Oct 10, 2007, at 9:38 AM, Aleksey Midenkov wrote:
And resolution for those who will suffer can be
SetEnvIf Request_Protocol HTTP/1.0 nokeepalive
No unnecessary CPU processing
On Wednesday 10 October 2007 18:04:47 Jim Jagielski wrote:
> On Oct 10, 2007, at 9:38 AM, Aleksey Midenkov wrote:
> > And resolution for those who will suffer can be
> >
> > SetEnvIf Request_Protocol HTTP/1.0 nokeepalive
> >
> > No unnecessary CPU processing for majority.
>
> Huh? You're adding an
On Oct 10, 2007, at 9:38 AM, Aleksey Midenkov wrote:
And resolution for those who will suffer can be
SetEnvIf Request_Protocol HTTP/1.0 nokeepalive
No unnecessary CPU processing for majority.
Huh? You're adding another conditional that needs
to be checked... And for most cases, where the pr
On Wednesday 10 October 2007 16:55:03 Jim Jagielski wrote:
> On Oct 10, 2007, at 8:38 AM, Aleksey Midenkov wrote:
> >
> > The behavior is wrong since 2001-03-16 and since then it *sure*
> > made and keeps
> > making confusion. About 6 years.
>
> Whatever. I would for sure wager that if this is chan
On Oct 10, 2007, at 8:38 AM, Aleksey Midenkov wrote:
On Wednesday 10 October 2007 16:25:58 Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Oct 10, 2007, at 6:01 AM, Aleksey Midenkov wrote:
On Tuesday 09 October 2007 22:49:38 Jim Jagielski wrote:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=78967
That's a 19
On Wednesday 10 October 2007 16:25:58 Jim Jagielski wrote:
> On Oct 10, 2007, at 6:01 AM, Aleksey Midenkov wrote:
> > On Tuesday 09 October 2007 22:49:38 Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=78967
> >>
> >> That's a 1997 date, btw :)
> >
> > There were no wo
On Oct 10, 2007, at 6:01 AM, Aleksey Midenkov wrote:
On Tuesday 09 October 2007 22:49:38 Jim Jagielski wrote:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=78967
That's a 1997 date, btw :)
There were no word about broken browsers in that commit, only about
broken
proxy. ;)
On Tues
On Tuesday 09 October 2007 22:49:38 Jim Jagielski wrote:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=78967
>
> That's a 1997 date, btw :)
There were no word about broken browsers in that commit, only about broken
proxy. ;)
On Tuesday 09 October 2007 22:41:19 Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I ca
On Tuesday 09 October 2007 22:12, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> All I'm saying is that, iirc, the intent of force-response-1.0 is
> to force a 1.0 response and disable keepalives... it was designed
> to work around buggy browsers that had problems with 1.1 features,
> including wonky 1.0-type keepalives.
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=78967
That's a 1997 date, btw :)
On Oct 9, 2007, at 2:19 PM, Joshua Slive wrote:
On 10/9/07, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
All I'm saying is that, iirc, the intent of force-response-1.0 is
to force a 1.0 response and disable keepalives... it was designed
to work around buggy browsers that had problems with 1.1 fea
On 10/9/07, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All I'm saying is that, iirc, the intent of force-response-1.0 is
> to force a 1.0 response and disable keepalives... it was designed
> to work around buggy browsers that had problems with 1.1 features,
> including wonky 1.0-type keepalives.
On Oct 9, 2007, at 1:49 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Oct 9, 2007, at 12:40 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I might be confused here, but if the response is forced 1.0,
then there are no keepalives in which case we want to *force*
keepalives
Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Oct 9, 2007, at 12:40 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>
>>> I might be confused here, but if the response is forced 1.0,
>>> then there are no keepalives in which case we want to *force*
>>> keepalives off.
>>
>> Actually two different setti
On Oct 9, 2007, at 12:40 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I might be confused here, but if the response is forced 1.0,
then there are no keepalives in which case we want to *force*
keepalives off.
Actually two different settings, no? 1.0 supported explicit
keepalives.
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 19:04:22 +0400
Aleksey Midenkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, I have checked all 6 variants.
Nice - thanks.
>In case 'Connection:' header is
> in the request, the response is sent exactly how this header asks
> (for both 1.0 and 1.1 protocols). In case of absence o
Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> I might be confused here, but if the response is forced 1.0,
> then there are no keepalives in which case we want to *force*
> keepalives off.
Actually two different settings, no? 1.0 supported explicit keepalives.
On Oct 9, 2007, at 11:04 AM, Aleksey Midenkov wrote:
On Tuesday 09 October 2007 18:13:00 Nick Kew wrote:
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 16:54:21 +0400
Aleksey Midenkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I believe the line making the connection always 'AP_CONN_CLOSE' on
force-response-1.
On Tuesday 09 October 2007 18:13:00 Nick Kew wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 16:54:21 +0400
>
> Aleksey Midenkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I believe the line making the connection always 'AP_CONN_CLOSE' on
> > force-response-1.0 is a erroneous leftover. T
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 16:54:21 +0400
Aleksey Midenkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe the line making the connection always 'AP_CONN_CLOSE' on
> force-response-1.0 is a erroneous leftover. The 1.0 should keep the
> connection alive if the browser will ask it to
I believe the line making the connection always 'AP_CONN_CLOSE' on
force-response-1.0 is a erroneous leftover. The 1.0 should keep the connection
alive if the browser will ask it to do so.
> httpd-trunk/modules/http$ grep -n -C 3 force-response-1.0 http_filters.c
> ...
>
29 matches
Mail list logo
