Steve Appling wrote:
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Look, there's no reason to start whining. Adding a lower level buffering
(using a ByteChunk maybe) is nearly trivial, and since you seem to know
what you're doing, you could have done in less than the amount it took
you to write your email.
I'm not
Millennium ChemInformatics
-Original Message-
From: Peter Lin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 9:22 PM
To: Tomcat Developers List
Subject: Re: Coyote Performance Problems with HTTP1.1
I don't know about others, but my feeling is chunking is useful for
large
Steve Appling wrote:
Chunked encoding with the coyote http1.1 connector seems to be very
inefficient. I have 3 major comments about it which I will summarize, then
explain in more detail for those interested.
1) There are some performance problems with the current implementation of
chunked
you have to love this reply!!! ;)
filip
- Original Message -
From: Remy Maucherat [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tomcat Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: Coyote Performance Problems with HTTP1.1
Steve Appling wrote:
Chunked encoding
I don't know about others, but my feeling is chunking is useful for large files and
not necessarily where the size of the content is unknown at the beginning of the
response. I seriously doubt a 2-5K static file would see a real benefit. We all know
the internet has a ton of packet collision.
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Look, there's no reason to start whining. Adding a lower level buffering
(using a ByteChunk maybe) is nearly trivial, and since you seem to know
what you're doing, you could have done in less than the amount it took
you to write your email.
I'm not convinced it's the
