Andrew M. Bishop wrote:
Joerg Sommer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
what's the state of the content-length header? Do you plan to activate it
in the next release? Do you have a patch to do this? I don't configure
wwwoffle to changes the sites it ships, so there is no reason to not
provide the content-length header.
I will not be including any code to insert the Content-Length header
and I do not have a patch that would add it.
It was a major relief to be able to remove the code in the first
place, it has been the cause of several bugs over the years. New
features in WWWOFFLE (chunked encoding, compressed pages, removal of
temporary files) means that it was getting less and less possible to
even have the header.
I know that there are some special cases when a header would work, but
recognising all of them makes the code complicated. I have to live
with this code, edit it and maintain it; not having the Content-Length
makes my life easier and lets me add other features.
For what it's worth, I do not agree with Andrew's assessment. When
downloading a fairly large file, a Content-Length header enables the
browser (or wget or whatever) to display a progress bar, which I find
very useful.
In the version of WWWOFFLE that I maintain for personal use, I try to
retain the Content-Length header or even add one when the length of the
response to the client can be known in advance. I do not use chunked
encoding in this case.
--
Paul Rombouts
