On 1/3/06, Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>2. Proposal > >>If a subrequest has a broken backend do not sent the error bucket. Only > >>set r->no_cache to ensure that this subrequest response does not get > >>cached. > > > > > > I think we still need to ensure that an error bucket is sent too, right? > > Otherwise, the connection will be reused - what am I missing? -- justin > > No, you are not missing anything. The question to me was: Do we need to close > a keepalive on the main request just because a subrequest failed in the middle > of the response? > Or to be more precise: Should the behaviour to cut off the keepalive be the > default > behaviour in such cases with the chance for subrequest creators to remove the > error > bucket and to make the response cacheable again or should it be the other way > round > that the subrequest creator is reponsible for preventing caching and closing > the > keepalive by sending the error bucket by himself if he thinks that this is > needed? > While writing this I personally come to the conclusion that the 1. proposal > (sending the error bucket) is saver as a default behaviour.
Oh, I didn't realize you intended it as an either/or scenario. Then, yes, I agree that #1 is correct. =) -- justin
