On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 09:28, Justin Erenkrantz <jus...@erenkrantz.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Ivan Zhakov <i...@visualsvn.com> wrote: >> It's really hard reproduce problem, because it's related to timing of >> sending and receiving requests. From the code my feeling that issue is >> still exists, just in more complicated scenario with more requests but >> I didn't find reproduction script. > > Can you give me an idea why you think the issue still exists? We'd be > adding the new priority requests after all of the previously-queued > (but unwritten) priority requests...so, unless I did a silly think-o, > I don't see why it would if the situation matches what was described > in the issue. -- justin > May be it's different issue, but in case if server doesn't require authentication for all requests and allow anonymous access for some requests: C: GET /restricted/ C: GET /public/ S: 401 /restricted/ S: 200 /public/ (client gets notification that second request is completed) C: GET /restricted S: 200 /restricted (clients gets notification that first request is completed)
-- Ivan Zhakov
