>
> Ok, so the next question is: any specific reason to exclude normal
> CGI responses with "Status" as in your patch?
>
> I in fact don't like the idea of supporting http-like answers with
> status like from CGI-like protocols, correct way is to use
> "Status" header. Not sure why Manlio introduced it at all,
> probably due to some compatibility concerns (and due to the fact
> that SCGI specification explicitly refuses to specify response
> format).

Honestly i do not remember why Manlio added support for nph (but i have
added it to uWSGI SCGI parser too, so in my subconsciuous there should be
a good reason :P)

regarding your updated patch is better for sure

--
Roberto De Ioris
http://unbit.it

_______________________________________________
nginx-devel mailing list
nginx-devel@nginx.org
http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx-devel