Guido van Rossum wrote: > Hm, but what would you do with a response not > in that list that didn't have a content-length? > You'd have to close the persistent connection. > We're committed to keep the persistent connection > open at all times because there's a special > Googly thing at the other end.
Fair enough. In the case of responses that are required to have no response body, you don't have to close the connection (that's actually a higher-order rule in determining length, see http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec4.html#sec4.4 point 1). But I can see the benefit to chunking over closing. Thanks for the suggestion. Robert Brewer System Architect Amor Ministries [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 12/21/06, Robert Brewer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Guido van Rossum wrote: > > We decided to add chunking encoding to our own server, > > it wasn't all that hard. What's the business of only > > doing it for certain status codes? > > Less overhead if the response has no entity or a small one. In my > experience, 200, 203 and 206 are the only ones that have large enough > response-bodies to bother. And since there's no spec for a WSGI app to tell > a WSGI server to chunk (because chunking support isn't mandatory), it seemed > best for a generic server. > > > Robert Brewer > System Architect > Amor Ministries > [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
_______________________________________________ Web-SIG mailing list Web-SIG@python.org Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
