On 10 March 2013 06:59, Jason Earl <je...@notengoamigos.org> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 09 2013, Andy Wingo wrote: > >> On Sat 09 Mar 2013 02:27, Daniel Hartwig <mand...@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> It is anyway clear that ‘response-body-port’ is missing the case where >>> a content-length header is not present and the body is terminated by >>> the server closing the port. Some additional care needs to be taken, >>> e.g. ‘#:keep-alive?’ is incompatible with missing content-length. >>> Depending on how ‘response-body-port’ is used, I will have to consider >>> whether to signal an error or do something else in that case. >>> >>> Thanks for reporting this and hopefully it can be fixed for the next >>> point release. As I am currently somewhat involved with the web >>> modules and related RFCs it is something else I can work on. >> >> Something like this? >> >> [patch]
Yes, more or less. :-)
