On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Schreibman, David wrote:
> Since I'm going to need support for chunked requests in 3.3 anyway, I'm
> going ahead with the port of my 3.2.2 changes. I hope to have it in a
> couple of days.
The fix in Ajp13 ( java side ) should be already in, and any _small_
fix in the java side is ok.
Same for mod_jk, after a lot of review :-)
If the change is not clear and simple enough ( i.e. easy to understand ),
I would be -1 on checking it in 3.3. We'll make sure j-t-c is easy to use
with 3.3, and I'm ok with any feature/enhancement/etc there.
Henri, Dan, Mike, Keith - please try to help with this one, I want to be
sure it gets enough review before going in.
> >- Does the java part need to know that the incoming data came in CHUNKED ?
> The Java side can figure it out if the Content-Length is not set. Still,
> the Content-Length might be set even when the transfer was chunked. Not
> sure how much value would be added in knowing this explicitly.
My understanding of HTTP/1.1 is that you can't have both ( or one should
be ignored - I'm packing my stuff and the spec is in a box right now, so I
can't check )
> >- Should we add others HTTP/1.1 commands like Range, Accept-Ranges, CONNECT
> >?
> I suppose these could be helpful but I haven't thought too much about it.
> In general, it seems like a good idea to leverage as much as possible from
> the transport.
Range, Accept-Ranges - for static content is done by Apache, for dynamic
content - I doubt we can, each servlet must deal with that ( to send
partial responses ). AFAIK nothing prevents that. Connection keep alive -
again, the server should take care of that, we don't need to do anything
special.
Costin
