|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: HTTP client q
My read is
1.0 not valid
1.1 must have for non persistent (aka no Connection: Keep-Alive)
I don't have a mapping of that to "more advanced API" you speak of.
a.
On 14 Nov 2012, at 17:33, Anil Madhavapeddy wrote:
> To the HTTP heads out there, is it ok for a single HTTP request (no
> pipelining) to always include "Connection: close" in the headers?
>
> In Cohttp, we currently don't do this, and it appears that every single
> client has to include the header, or risk the other side not closing the
> connection cleanly.
>
> I'm modifying Cohttp to always send the Connection header when a single
> get/put/post/head request is issued, but *not* when the more advanced
> pipeline API calls are used. Does this sound sane?
>
> -anil
Relevant extract RFC2616 *and there might be something more recent, I can't
find ight now, it is not clear that the follower RFCs explicitly obsolete this.
HTTP/1.1 defines the "close" connection option for the sender to signal that
the connection will be closed after completion of the response. For example,
Connection: close
in either the request or the response header fields indicates that the
connection SHOULD NOT be considered `persistent' (section 8.1) after the
current request/response is complete.
HTTP/1.1 applications that do not support persistent connections MUST include
the "close" connection option in every message.
A system receiving an HTTP/1.0 (or lower-version) message that includes a
Connection header MUST, for each connection-token in this field, remove and
ignore any header field(s) from the message with the same name as the
connection-token. This protects against mistaken forwarding of such header
fields by pre-HTTP/1.1 proxies. See section 19.6.2.
14.11
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |