Re: cvs commit: apache/htdocs/manual/misc fin_wait_2.html

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

Roy Fielding wrote:
> 

The current docs strongly imply that without lingering_close, that
PUTS and pipelining will not work. As I understand it, this is only
true if there is an error in the transmission. In other words, the
method that Apache uses without lingering_close/SO_LINGER does
work correctly as long as there is no error in the transfer.

Shouldn't we mention that the use of l_c/SO_LINGER is to allow
Apache to work correctly during these problem but are not specifically
related to them working correctly?

Am I rambling??
-- 
====================================================================
      Jim Jagielski            |       jaguNET Access Services
     jim@jaguNET.com           |       http://www.jaguNET.com/
                  "Not the Craw... the CRAW!"

Re: cvs commit: apache/htdocs/manual/misc fin_wait_2.html

[Marc Slemko <ma...@znep.com>]

First I'd like to comment that I like Roy's updates to this page.

On Wed, 29 Jan 1997, Jim Jagielski wrote:

> Roy Fielding wrote:
> > 
> 
> The current docs strongly imply that without lingering_close, that
> PUTS and pipelining will not work. As I understand it, this is only
> true if there is an error in the transmission. In other words, the
> method that Apache uses without lingering_close/SO_LINGER does
> work correctly as long as there is no error in the transfer.

No.  Well, true for non-persistent PUTs. 

Remember that the server can close the connection at any time, either due
to a timeout, load, the current revision of Linux... whatever it feels
like.  After the server closes the connection, data from subsequent
requests will send a RST to the client without lingering_close which is
bad.  This should, in theory, happen less now that the default limit is
above 5 requests per connection. 

PUTs and pipelining (actually it isn't just pipelining but potentially any
persistent connection) can break.  I don't think it is happening much with
today's clients, but I don't think most (any?) of them implement
pipelining.

> 
> Shouldn't we mention that the use of l_c/SO_LINGER is to allow
> Apache to work correctly during these problem but are not specifically
> related to them working correctly?

Come again?  Sorry, I'm not sure I'm parsing that the way you intend.

> 
> Am I rambling??

No more than me...