Subject Author Date
Re: HTTP compression Stephen R. van den Berg <srb[at]cuci[dot]nl> 14-05-2009
Martin Jonsson wrote:
>Stephen R. van den Berg wrote:
>>The correct patch as shown above ensures that in case we decide (later)
>>not to send compressed (e.g. because of a range request), the file encoding
>>is still at its original (nil) value.  It was previously overwritten.

>(Did you observe file->encoding being overwritten when sending 
>uncompressed with the previous code? If that was the case, I guess a 
>"Content-Encoding: gzip" header would be sent (even though the content 
>was uncompressed) to non-gzip-compliant clients each time a request 
>resulted in a protstore, right? I personally haven't observed any 
>effects like that lately.)

Yes.  The last patch was a direct result of observed misbehaviour which
was definitely fixed after applying the patch.
           Stephen R. van den Berg.

Safe sex is in your hands.