Date: 28 Jun 2000 18:27:57 +0200 From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no> To: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/conf files options src/sys/i386/conf NOT Message-ID: <xzpvgytwz1u.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> In-Reply-To: Alfred Perlstein's message of "Wed, 28 Jun 2000 09:17:00 -0700" References: <20000627091227.K275@fw.wintelcom.net> <200006271755.KAA01724@john.baldwin.cx> <20000628091700.W275@fw.wintelcom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alfred Perlstein <alfred@FreeBSD.ORG> writes: > * John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG> [000628 01:11] wrote: > > On 27-Jun-00 Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > > * Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no> [000627 04:43] wrote: > > >> Alfred Perlstein <alfred@FreeBSD.org> writes: > > >> > two accept filters are provided, one that returns sockets when data > > >> > arrives the other when an http request is completed (doesn't work > > >> > with 0.9 requests) > > >> ...which means it doesn't work except as proof of concept. > > > Show me a browser that only issues 0.9 requests and I'll show you > > > a browser that wouldn't grok the html on my page even if it did > > > respond to 0.9. > > For one thing, if I manually telnet to a host, I'm much more likely > > to use a 0.9 request than a 1.0 one [...] > Which won't work when there's vhosting going on. I know. But in any case, you didn't specify *how* HTTPACCEPT fails to work with HTTP 0.9. If it wakes the process up too early, no problem (you're no worse off than without HTTPACCETPT). But if it never wakes up the process (because it keeps waiting for more header lines), that's not acceptable. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@flood.ping.uio.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzpvgytwz1u.fsf>