Re: [WebDNA] TCP HTTP/1.1 questions
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2011
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 106489
interpreted = N
texte = I reviewed the protocol and it seems that chunked transfer-encoding is probably the source of this problem. I don't imagine webDNA supports persistent connections, so a "Connection: Close" header must be included. I'll try this out tomorrow and let ya know what I get. On 4/5/11 11:18 PM, Kenneth Grome wrote: > Maybe this is the cause of the problem I was having months > ago when I reported unexplained delays in retrieving data > via tcpconnect from a non-WebDNA site. I don't remember if > I was using HTTP 1.0 or 1.1 but now that you mention this I > think I'll have to go back and see what I was using ... > > Sincerely, > Kenneth Grome > > > >> Greetings, >> >> I've been using APIs with WebDNA successfully with >> 3rd parties like Amazon and Google using the TCP syntax. >> However, there are a couple things nagging at me with >> this... >> >> note: I am making these connections via SSL and am using >> a Windows iis6 box with DNA6.0 >> >> I've noticed that if I make any errors constructing HTTP >> headers in the send (especially to a Google API), the >> dna page will often take several minutes to load. This >> mostly happens when I use HTTP/1.1 as opposed to 1.0. >> It seems that a well-formed 1.0 request will take >> several minutes to complete if I simply change it to >> 1.1. What's with this lag time? Does this have anything >> to do with "chunking"? >> >> Is there any major differences between forming 1.0 to 1.1 >> requests with WebDNA? Are there any particular >> encodings or snippets that others have successfully >> used? Is it important to setheaders in the page making >> the request? >> >> In general, does anyone have any insight why I am having >> problems using 1.1 rather than 1.0? >> >> Thanks! >> >> Aaron Michael >> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------- >> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to >> the mailing list
. >> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: >> archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us >> Bug Reporting: support@webdna.us > --------------------------------------------------------- > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list. > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us > Bug Reporting: support@webdna.us
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
I reviewed the protocol and it seems that chunked transfer-encoding is probably the source of this problem. I don't imagine webDNA supports persistent connections, so a "Connection: Close" header must be included. I'll try this out tomorrow and let ya know what I get. On 4/5/11 11:18 PM, Kenneth Grome wrote: > Maybe this is the cause of the problem I was having months > ago when I reported unexplained delays in retrieving data > via tcpconnect from a non-WebDNA site. I don't remember if > I was using HTTP 1.0 or 1.1 but now that you mention this I > think I'll have to go back and see what I was using ... > > Sincerely, > Kenneth Grome > > > >> Greetings, >> >> I've been using APIs with WebDNA successfully with >> 3rd parties like Amazon and Google using the TCP syntax. >> However, there are a couple things nagging at me with >> this... >> >> note: I am making these connections via SSL and am using >> a Windows iis6 box with DNA6.0 >> >> I've noticed that if I make any errors constructing HTTP >> headers in the send (especially to a Google API), the >> dna page will often take several minutes to load. This >> mostly happens when I use HTTP/1.1 as opposed to 1.0. >> It seems that a well-formed 1.0 request will take >> several minutes to complete if I simply change it to >> 1.1. What's with this lag time? Does this have anything >> to do with "chunking"? >> >> Is there any major differences between forming 1.0 to 1.1 >> requests with WebDNA? Are there any particular >> encodings or snippets that others have successfully >> used? Is it important to setheaders in the page making >> the request? >> >> In general, does anyone have any insight why I am having >> problems using 1.1 rather than 1.0? >> >> Thanks! >> >> Aaron Michael >> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------- >> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to >> the mailing list. >> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: >> archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us >> Bug Reporting: support@webdna.us > --------------------------------------------------------- > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list. > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us > Bug Reporting: support@webdna.us
Aaron Michael Kaczmarek
DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!
Top Articles:
Talk List
The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...
Related Readings:
[WebDNA] fastcgi 7+ & [cart]? (2010)
EmailCompleted Clean Up (2001)
Authenticate (1999)
A little syntax help (1997)
The Guru, The Mooseman, Susie and Is That Really the Only Manual? (1998)
Re:Change WebDNA-Talk Mail due to no digest for 1wk (1997)
NY taxRates.db? (1997)
Tab Charactor (1997)
Error & Problem (1997)
Log-in Scheme (2003)
Is this too many webcat processes? (I don't know how to read this) (2000)
[price] via a search (1998)
File upload woes (1998)
payment processors (2005)
Adding up line items. (2000)
Limiting user access to .tmpl files (1997)
Rams SuperBowl Champs (2000)
WCS Newbie question (1997)
[Announce]: Web server security and password protection (1997)
OFF-TOPIC: Lending investors ... (2002)