Mladen Turk wrote:
Hi all,
I would like to propose a simple vote on the thing I consider
as very important.
I see that.
The things we have right now for dealing with Keep-Alive is
dependent only on the soTimeout.
I propose that we split that to the real soTimeout which is the
timeout between two consecutive read() on http request and the
additional keepAliveTimeout that will be used for determining the
timeout between two requests.
Few reason why we should need those timeouts separately
configured is:
1. Why not, if its possible without breaking current config ?
2. If the timeout between two request is lower then soTimeout it
will allow to have much higher number of slow clients
3. If the timeout between two requests is higher then soTimeout
it will allow to deal with slow clients sending one byte at the
the time with the unacceptable rate.
Only scenario 3 is not available currently, and it seems useless (in
particular for the java.io connector, which can never afford having a
long timeout while waiting for the next request). If you really want a
property named "keealiveTimeout", then "disableUploadTimeout" can be
refactored into it.
So, I'll just throw a vote here:
[ ] I'm for that proposal
[ ] I'm against that proposal
[X] I don't care
Of course, there is always an option to have an veto.
Hmmm.
As many of you already know, the code itself was already
in the SVN, but it was reverted.
No, I had made some adjustments to it, and then you reverted it, along
with a couple of my other patches. I do not think the defaults you
implemented were sensible either (especially for AJP). Apparently is not
allowed.
Rémy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
