Remy Maucherat wrote: > Look, there's no reason to start whining. Adding a lower level buffering > (using a ByteChunk maybe) is nearly trivial, and since you seem to know > what you're doing, you could have done in less than the amount it took > you to write your email. > I'm not convinced it's the best solution all the time (Coyote leverages > the buffering mandated by the higher level - the servlet API - to avoid > useless copying from buffer to buffer). > > -1 for option 2 (I consider keepalive is more important than anything else).
I am perfectly willing to work on this, but it did not seem trivial to someone not familiar with the coyote connector. I need to be able to point out issues (and find out if they really are problems) without being accused of whining. You seem to imply that keepalive is tied to chunking - I believe these are independent and chunking could be disabled without sacrificing keepalive. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
