- From: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 20:07:10 +0200
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Joe Orton <joe@manyfish.co.uk>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On tis, 2008-06-03 at 19:23 +0200, Julian Reschke wrote: > Well, unless I'm missing something, it will be hard to send from a > servlet (hey, Servlet EG, are you listening...?). Content-MD5 either needs the server to buffer the response, or sent in the trailer. Same for Content-Length except that it can't be sent in a trailer. Claiming that those isn't usable for a servlet is plain wrong. It's all an implementation detail, and how feasible it is depends primarily on the size of the response. > Well, what would they contain in case of a truncated response? Surely > not the length/digest of the actual response, because that wouldn't help > the client finding out about the truncation... Indeed. > Maybe something like "final-status" as a new response header would make > sense. That way, a server could send an initial 2xx, start sending > content, and in case of internal errors could at least signal that > something went fatally wrong... Problem there is that recipients are not required to care about trailers and those who don't will misread the response as 100% successful.. so you are better off simply closing the connection in the middle of the response and log the error locally. The next-hop will notice the error, but there is no guarantee the final recipient will.. The scope of this WG is to clarify HTTP/1.1 and correct errors, not HTTP/1.2 (or 2.0) fixing the shortcomings of HTTP/1.1. Regards Henrik
Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2008 18:08:09 UTC