-
dmcabrita made 3 file-release changes.
2010-01-03 10:01:03 UTC by dmcabrita
-
dmcabrita made 2 file-release changes.
2010-01-03 10:00:01 UTC by dmcabrita
-
dmcabrita made 2 file-release changes.
2010-01-03 09:59:01 UTC by dmcabrita
-
dmcabrita made 2 file-release changes.
2010-01-03 09:58:02 UTC by dmcabrita
-
dmcabrita committed patchset 386 of module ziproxy-default to the ziproxy CVS repository, changing 1 files.
2010-01-03 09:23:40 UTC by dmcabrita
-
dmcabrita committed patchset 385 of module ziproxy-default to the ziproxy CVS repository, changing 1 files.
2010-01-03 09:22:57 UTC by dmcabrita
-
dmcabrita committed patchset 384 of module ziproxy-default to the ziproxy CVS repository, changing 52 files.
2010-01-03 09:14:59 UTC by dmcabrita
-
dmcabrita committed patchset 383 of module ziproxy-default to the ziproxy CVS repository, changing 9 files.
2010-01-03 08:58:33 UTC by dmcabrita
-
You got it wrong, by "No persistent(...)" I meant "Lack of persistent(...)".
And, yes, I'm aware that persistent connection is mandatory for full HTTP/1.1 compliance.
The lack of such feature affects the user depending a lot on the characteristics of the network (that also includes the country where you and the remote hosts are).
In the particular case I used Ziproxy (I'm no longer involved...
2010-01-01 05:47:36 UTC by dmcabrita
-
Well, I don't get it. As the first connection from the browser is waiting for server answer anyway I don't see why persistent connection would be slower.
Also, from this:
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec8.html
it seems it's required for a compliant HTTP/1.1 client
BTW, I'm speaking of persistent connection server side ("ziproxy to webserver" to speed up caching), not client...
2009-12-31 10:35:32 UTC by stagenex
