On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 19:04:22 +0400 Aleksey Midenkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, I have checked all 6 variants. Nice - thanks. > In case 'Connection:' header is > in the request, the response is sent exactly how this header asks > (for both 1.0 and 1.1 protocols). In case of absence of 'Connection:' > header, the response for 1.0 answers with 'Connection: close' and > closes the connection. The response for 1.1 does not have > 'Connection:' header, but keeps the connection open. OK, that last case is the one that risks biting us: if someone has asked the server to force a 1.0 response, that could be because there's a problem with keepalives (yes of course they can work around it, but we want to avoid breaking existing configs). On the basis of your analysis, I'd be +1 for checking the Connection header, and setting AP_CONN_CLOSE iff it doesn't ask for keep-alive. > The logic is > provided by ap_set_keepalive, it is called right after > basic_http_header_check in ap_http_header_filter. I believe the > absence of the header in the last variant does regard RFC2616 (as > 19.6.2 states). Indeedie. But a forced 1.0 response is a workaround for agents that fail to support RFC2616 correctly, so that's not really the point. -- Nick Kew Application Development with Apache - the Apache Modules Book http://www.apachetutor.org/
