On Oct 2, 2006, at 7:24 AM, Mladen Turk wrote:
Hi all,
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.
[X] I'm for tha
+1 and add documenation :-)
Peter
Am 02.10.2006 um 13:24 schrieb Mladen Turk:
[x ] I'm for that proposal
[ ] I'm against that proposal
[ ] I don't care
Mladen Turk wrote:
[ ] I'm for that proposal
[ ] I'm against that proposal
[X ] I don't care
-Tim
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+0
2006/10/3, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Mladen Turk wrote:
> [X] I'm for that proposal
> [ ] I'm against that proposal
> [ ] I don't care
If you believe there is a requirement for it, the implementation can
be done cleanly and you are prepared to support it then go for it.
I would like
Mladen Turk wrote:
> [X] I'm for that proposal
> [ ] I'm against that proposal
> [ ] I don't care
If you believe there is a requirement for it, the implementation can
be done cleanly and you are prepared to support it then go for it.
I would like to echo Yoav's comments that the docs should be up
Bill Barker wrote:
I pretty much agree with Remy: Anything useful this would do has been in
place since the early days of Coyote. Also, anybody that actually would
care about this option almost certainly wouldn't be using the JIO Connector
:).
Fair enough.
Someone even said that there is
> -Original Message-
> From: Mladen Turk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 4:25 AM
> To: tomcat Developers List
> Subject: [VOTE] Split soTimeout to soTimeout and keepAliveTimeout
>
> Hi all,
>
> I would like to propose a simple vote on the thing I consider
>
[X] I'm for that proposal
[ ] I'm against that proposal
[ ] I don't care
Filip
Mladen Turk wrote:
Hi all,
I would like to propose a simple vote on the thing I consider
as very important. It's probably the first vote ever done for
the commited code, but the reasons are known for the folks read
Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
where is this proposed, 6.0 or 5.5.x dot release?
Sorry it's targeted for 6.0
(I thought it was clear from the patches)
Regards,
Mladen
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additiona
where is this proposed, 6.0 or 5.5.x dot release?
Filip
Mladen Turk wrote:
Hi all,
I would like to propose a simple vote on the thing I consider
as very important. It's probably the first vote ever done for
the commited code, but the reasons are known for the folks reading
tomcat dev list.
T
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 betwee
Hi,
On 10/2/06, Mladen Turk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
[ X ] I'm for t
12 matches
Mail list logo
