On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 3:11 PM, <kmradke_at_rockwellcollins.com> wrote:
> > > I agree that force-http10 is not good name and semantic. Actually
> > > these proxies is not busted: it's allowed to HTTP/1.1 proxies to
> > > require content-length if they want. And strictly speaking proxies may
> > > have different behavior for different requests.
> > From *our* standpoint, they are busted. Subversion wants to use
> > chunked requests. If they don't support it, then they are busted.
> > Simple as that.
> > And we want to use a provocative name so that people understand
> > something needs to be *fixed*. Fixed for us because we view them as
> > *busted*.
> From the *users* standpoint subversion is busted. Something that
I'm not seeing the point. Subversion will (now) work, but we still view the
proxy as busted. It doesn't provide the performance characteristics that
Subversion wants and expects. Note that Subversion is built to work against
mod_dav_svn which is HTTP/1.1 with chunked requests. The interposition of a
proxy that disables chunked requests... busted.
> worked fine in 1.7 does not work in 1.8 without modifying potentially
> unrelated things that neither the server admin or the client
> user may have control over. (Think proxy at a hotel, etc.)
Of course. But we can fix this. (and I believe, have fixed it)
> The spec states that 411 is an allowed response and is it also states
> the client should prefer to not use chunked requests if possible.
> Serf is being overly optimistic here.
"Prefer" is not the same as "must" :-)
In our current model, we prefer chunked. But there is a pretty
straightforward extension to serf's bucket model that should allow us to
use C-L in many situations. We *might* be able to do that in a serf 1.x,
but I'm not sure. Worst case, we'll add the feature in serf 2.x.
Received on 2013-06-29 05:37:54 CEST