Comanche was not sending the correct 'Connection: {Keep-Alive,Close}' in the response header. The attached fix cures the problem allowing browsers that aggressively use persistent connections (e.g., Safari) to work without endless annoying "connection reset" errors.
Ian
Quoting Ian Piumarta ian.piumarta@inria.fr:
Comanche was not sending the correct 'Connection: {Keep-Alive,Close}' in the response header. The attached fix cures the problem allowing browsers that aggressively use persistent connections (e.g., Safari) to work without endless annoying "connection reset" errors.
Ian
YES! I was just about to post about that ;)
--
Version 5.1.1 of Comanche is now available on SqueakMap with this fix.
- Stephen
-----Original Message----- From: squeak-dev-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:squeak-dev-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Ian Piumarta Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 1:42 PM To: squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Subject: [FIX][Comanche] persistent connections
Comanche was not sending the correct 'Connection: {Keep-Alive,Close}' in the response header. The attached fix cures the problem allowing browsers that aggressively use persistent connections (e.g., Safari) to work without endless annoying "connection reset" errors.
Ian
I downloaded the ComSwiki distro... (which I think is an awesome packaging job!) and noticed the persistent connection issue (like when using Safari) that was fixed in the HttpAdaptor class of Comanche... I looked at the code in the distro image, and the code:
pvtWriteResponse
[
(self isPersistentConnection and: [Preferences keepAliveConnections])
ifTrue: [response fieldAt: 'Connection' put: 'close']
ifFalse: [response fieldAt: 'Connection' put: 'Keep-Alive'].
response writeOn: self writeStream
]
on: Error do: [ :ex | ex]
Has the 'close' and 'Keep-Alive' reversed from what was in the FIX. I changed them in my local image and everything works like a charm.. (the above code is like what is in the image.)
Brian
What is the relationship between new and initialize? I see examples like:
var := SomeClass new initialize.
and also var := SomeClass new.
Does initialize automatically get called upon object creation, or is just another message that I can chose to call or not? I see classes both with and without initialize and I can understand there may be no instance setup required or maybe a superclass does it....
confused,
Brian
On Tuesday 01 April 2003 03:23 pm, Brian Brown wrote:
What is the relationship between new and initialize? I see examples like:
var := SomeClass new initialize.
and also
var := SomeClass new.
Does initialize automatically get called upon object creation,
No. It is called explicitly in some classes.
or is just another message that I can chose to call or not? I see classes both with and without initialize and I can understand there may be no instance setup required or maybe a superclass does it....
Tradition! In many cases, #new calls initialize.
For instance, in Morph, we see this pattern. So Morph subclass constructors shouldn't call initialize if they call new (because we'd be initializing twice).
Look at how #new is defined. In Behavior>>new we call the primitive, as in #basicNew.
So one idiom for new is
self basicNew initialize
which would avoid the double initialization that would occur if a superclass defined new to call initialize as well.
But it doesn't make any sense to have a 0-argument constructor in many classes.
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Brian Brown -
Ian Piumarta -
Ned Konz -
Stephen Pair