lör 2007-04-07 klockan 04:00 -0500 skrev William A. Rowe, Jr.:
Of course this person is entirely wrong if the client doesn't
Accept-Encoding: chunked
which is exactly the logic we test.
So why is there a dependency on keep-alive being enabled?
Regards
Henrik
signature.asc
Description:
On 4/8/07, Henrik Nordstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So why is there a dependency on keep-alive being enabled?
If keep-alive is disabled for the connection, then Connection: Close
tends to be more efficient anyway... -- justin
* Graham Dumpleton wrote:
Thus my question is, why when Apache was updated to support HTTP/1.1
did it just preserve the HTTP/1.0 type behaviour and not in cases
where it could automatically apply chunked transfer encoding to the
response, apply it?
Hmm, you may get something wrong here. The
On 07/04/07, André Malo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Graham Dumpleton wrote:
Thus my question is, why when Apache was updated to support HTTP/1.1
did it just preserve the HTTP/1.0 type behaviour and not in cases
where it could automatically apply chunked transfer encoding to the
response,
lör 2007-04-07 klockan 09:18 +0200 skrev André Malo:
Hmm, you may get something wrong here. The httpd does apply chunked encoding
automatically when it needs to. That is in keep-alive situations without
given or determineable Content-Length.
Why doesn't it do it in all other cases? My
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
The person on the WSGI list is more or less claiming that there would
be no harm in a web server always applying chunked transfer encoding
to a response which doesn't specify a content length
Of course this person is entirely wrong if the client doesn't
* Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
lör 2007-04-07 klockan 09:18 +0200 skrev André Malo:
Hmm, you may get something wrong here. The httpd does apply chunked
encoding automatically when it needs to. That is in keep-alive
situations without given or determineable Content-Length.
Why doesn't it do
On 4/7/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
The person on the WSGI list is more or less claiming that there would
be no harm in a web server always applying chunked transfer encoding
to a response which doesn't specify a content length
Of course this
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Chunking support on a response is implicit if you claim HTTP/1.1
support. You don't need to signal it with Accept-Encoding (you can, I
guess). IOW, an HTTP/1.1 client should always a expect a server may
give back chunking... -- justin
Of course, my bad.
tells me that this
doesn't sound quite right and there must be good reasons why Apache
doesn't do it. Is this persons claim reasonable, or are there good
reasons why one wouldn't want to use chunked transfer encoding on
responses with no content length header and thus why Apache requires
r-chunked
10 matches
Mail list logo
