Remy Maucherat wrote: > Bill Barker wrote: >>>How about making the output buffer size limit configurable? >>>(A value of "-1" could mean indefinite growth, if people know what they >>>are doing.) >> >> I also dislike the proposal, but since it's configurable, and off by >> default >> I can limit myself to -0. The biggest problem I see is that "if people >> know what they are doing", then they would never dream of enabling the >> option :). > > I will vote -1 to the proposal: > - this has no actual performance benefits that I can see > - this is equivalent to a "benchmark" flag, where the server is slightly > faster, but isn't useful for anything but throughtput testing (since the > server would eventually just die) > > Do you see such a benchmark setting in the HTTPd ? I think not. > I have nothing about people optimizing code, but the optimizations > should have an actual usefulness (such as tag pools, which some people > like). If the optimization makes the server unusable, then it shouldn't > be there.
It can also be useful if you have a client that doesn't support "chunked encoding" - which is probably true for a _lot_ of scripting tools. If there is any other way to have the response not use chunked encoding, then I agree this is not needed. Do we still support HTTP/1.0 or some request header to disable the encoding? Costin --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
