[Bug 63835] Add support for Keep-Alive header

2019-11-16 Thread bugzilla
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

[Bug 63835] Add support for Keep-Alive header

2019-11-16 Thread bugzilla
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

[Bug 63835] Add support for Keep-Alive header

2019-11-15 Thread bugzilla
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,

[Bug 63835] Add support for Keep-Alive header

2019-11-15 Thread bugzilla
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

[Bug 63835] Add support for Keep-Alive header

2019-11-15 Thread bugzilla
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

[Bug 63835] Add support for Keep-Alive header

2019-11-15 Thread bugzilla
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/ >

[Bug 63835] Add support for Keep-Alive header

2019-11-14 Thread bugzilla
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

[Bug 63835] Add support for Keep-Alive header

2019-11-14 Thread bugzilla
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63835 Michael Osipov changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug 63835] Add support for Keep-Alive header

2019-10-12 Thread bugzilla
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

[Bug 63835] Add support for Keep-Alive header

2019-10-11 Thread bugzilla
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

[Bug 63835] Add support for Keep-Alive header

2019-10-11 Thread bugzilla
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

[Bug 63835] Add support for Keep-Alive header

2019-10-11 Thread bugzilla
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:

[Bug 63835] Add support for Keep-Alive header

2019-10-11 Thread bugzilla
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.

[Bug 63835] Add support for Keep-Alive header

2019-10-11 Thread bugzilla
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63835 Michael Osipov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||micha...@apache.org --- Comment #1