joshua at slive
May 9, 2008, 6:56 AM
Post #4 of 4
(77 views)
Permalink
|
|
Re: Why include Content-Length in type-maps?
[In reply to]
|
|
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Daniel
<aleksandersen+apache.org[at]runbox.com> wrote:
> 2008-05-09 15:25 skreiv Joshua Slive:
>> On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Mathias wrote:
>> > Are there any benefits of including Content-Length in type-maps? I do not
>> > understand the need to overwrite this option when Apache is perfectly
>> > capable of retrieving the information on it’s own.
>> >
>> > Are there performance benefits of including it?
>>
>> Without checking the code I'm just guessing, but it could be that the
>> content-length is used as a negotiation criterion: if all else
>> matches, choose the smallest representation.
>
> It is a negotiation criteria. I think what he is trying to ask about is: why
> he should manually include it in the type-map instead of letting Apache
> gather the file size automatically.
Oh, I bet that apache won't bother trying to determine the
content-length of all those files if you don't specify it explicitly.
Too much work for too little gain. If you want that, just go with
MultiViews rather than a type-map.
Joshua.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe[at]httpd.apache.org
" from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe[at]httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help[at]httpd.apache.org
|
