https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63835
--- Comment #14 from Konstantin Kolinko ---
Tes(In reply to Konstantin Kolinko from comment #13)
> (In reply to Mark Thomas from comment #11)
> > My reading of the code and RFC 7230 is that it is acceptable to send this
> > header to HTTP/1.0 c
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63835
--- Comment #13 from Konstantin Kolinko ---
(In reply to Mark Thomas from comment #11)
> My reading of the code and RFC 7230 is that it is acceptable to send this
> header to HTTP/1.0 clients when this code does this. [...]
Ack. I agree. The r
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63835
--- Comment #12 from Michael Osipov ---
The change in Git looks good to me.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63835
--- Comment #11 from Mark Thomas ---
Mainly because I want to get 9.0.x and 8.5.x tagged ASAP I am intending to
commit fixes to address the concerns raised here shortly.
I agree a rename of the constants would help.
My reading of the code and
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63835
--- Comment #10 from Konstantin Kolinko ---
(In reply to Michael Osipov from comment #9)
> >
> > 1. I think that if you are rolling out an experimental feature, there must
> > be a flag controlling it.
>
> Why do you consider it to be an expe
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63835
--- Comment #9 from Michael Osipov ---
Thanks for reviewing, let's go in detail
(In reply to Konstantin Kolinko from comment #8)
> Reviewing the commit implementing this feature in Tomcat 9,
> https://github.com/apache/tomcat/commit/
> 1c5bf7a
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63835
--- Comment #8 from Konstantin Kolinko ---
Reviewing the commit implementing this feature in Tomcat 9,
https://github.com/apache/tomcat/commit/1c5bf7a904cffa438eb9b979f3bd32e1579e9666
1. I think that if you are rolling out an experimental feat
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63835
Michael Osipov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63835
--- Comment #6 from Michael Osipov ---
(In reply to Mark Thomas from comment #5)
> The proposal never went past draft 03 in 2012. I'm wondering why.
Me too.
> The max parameter is already deprecated in draft 03. I don't think Tomcat
> should
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63835
--- Comment #5 from Mark Thomas ---
The proposal never went past draft 03 in 2012. I'm wondering why.
The max parameter is already deprecated in draft 03. I don't think Tomcat
should be implementing a deprecated feature of a draft proposal wit
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63835
--- Comment #4 from Michael Osipov ---
(In reply to Remy Maucherat from comment #3)
> This feature idea doesn't look good to me:
> - What if there's a proxy ? [usually, there is a proxy]
> - This feature looks very late 90s ish and it wasn't ad
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63835
--- Comment #3 from Remy Maucherat ---
This feature idea doesn't look good to me:
- What if there's a proxy ? [usually, there is a proxy]
- This feature looks very late 90s ish and it wasn't added then
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63835
--- Comment #2 from Michael Osipov ---
The implementation contains a bug where the max value must be decreasing. This
value can be is available on the endpoint, but there is no getter for. The
decrementKeepAliveRequests output is not stored. Th
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63835
Michael Osipov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||micha...@apache.org
--- Comment #1 fr
14 matches
Mail list logo
