Hello!

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 04:20:29PM +0100, Roberto De Ioris wrote:

>
> >
> > 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

Committed, thnx.

--
Maxim Dounin
http://nginx.com/support.html

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