On May 17, 2014, at 7:51 AM, Alan M. Carroll a...@network-geographics.com
wrote:
Hmmm, is that always going to be the case? I’d imagine that we (long term)
support the following types of sessions:
I think it will be. In fact, I would argue that the possible future
proliferation of
James,
I still don't understand this focus on client session chaining. AFAICT there
is no client session chaining other than an implementation detail in the
current SPDY implementation. I don't see how client session is a general
concept at all.
In order to do other things (such as
On May 19, 2014, at 10:46 AM, Alan M. Carroll a...@network-geographics.com
wrote:
James,
I still don't understand this focus on client session chaining. AFAICT there
is no client session chaining other than an implementation detail in the
current SPDY implementation. I don't see how
(also CK supports 32-bit architectures)
On May 19, 2014, at 5:26 PM, a...@apache.org wrote:
Repository: trafficserver
Updated Branches:
refs/heads/master c25fb7541 - ce8304309
TS-2821 Add to default records.config and tweak the name to be more
consistent.
Project:
James,
Monday, May 19, 2014, 7:45:29 PM, you wrote:
I will bow out of the naming issue just do whatever the consensus is.
The default value of 1000 is *huge*. 10 would be better IMHO.
1000 was the existing hardwired value.
We should not be adding more default entries to records.config; the
