Mladen Turk wrote:
Look, the keepAliveTimeout defaults to soTimeout.
Further more I collected enough votes, so your explanation is useless.
The vote was not to have your patch committed verbatim (it is broken),
but to add a new keepAliveTimeout attribute to control HTTP keep alive
timeout (= the amount of time between requests). If it's not meant to
represent this, then the naming is quite bad (and I would be against
this addition, since I think it would be a confusing configuration
option). I find the argument that any explanations are useless to be
very bad.
So either you'll revert the commits to my patches, or I'll do them.
I would veto a revert (I think the addition of a keepalive timeout is
obviously not a hugely important feature, but it could be useful in some
cases - previous configuration only allowed having a keepalive timeout
which was shorter than the regular socket timeout, and it was not very
flexible either).
I am free to commit things, especially since I actually fixed some of
your patch. You are free to veto my commit, in which case it would be
time to take this to the PMC for resolution, as I would stand by my veto
of your original patch unless it is adjusted according to my changes.
Rémy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
