[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I honestly don't know enough about this problem to give you a more > sensible answer. Adding a second HTTP operation into the mix is asking > for performance problems. I wandered the halls before sending out this > e-mail. As far as I can tell, only Stephen knows what Stephen wants for > client intent. We should make him write this down, and then go from > there. > > My understanding from previous discussions was that we wanted/needed > something lightweight and easily attached to the HTTP request. IIRC, we > had discussed using HTTP headers, modifying the URL, and other related > trickery. I'm not trying to unilaterally shoot down your proposal, but > it seems like it might be worth considering alternate approaches, or > keeping header information to just the bare minimum. Without > understanding the requirements for this feature, it's hard for me to > provide you with more insightful advice -- sorry :(.
I may just stick with the header approach for now, and if it causes problems, switch gears. I've spent quite a bit of time reading through various RFC and specs and can't find anything that documents a given limit on header size. It doesn't look like Apache has any problem with it, but IIS and various other web servers appear to choke on large headers. -- Shawn Walker _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
