www.cendio.com
Bug 6003 - tlwebadm and tlwebaccess doesn't support HTTP/1.1
: tlwebadm and tlwebaccess doesn't support HTTP/1.1
Status: NEW
: ThinLinc
Other
: pre-1.0
: PC Unknown
: P2 Normal
: MediumPrio
Assigned To:
:
:
:
: 6004
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2016-09-22 14:04 by
Modified: 2017-01-26 13:44 (History)
Acceptance Criteria:


Attachments


Note

You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.


Description From cendio 2016-09-22 14:04:34
HTTP/1.1 supports modern features like multiple requests over one connection.
Supporting it would make our services better.
------- Comment #1 From cendio 2016-10-05 13:43:06 -------
See bug 6020 for HTTP/2
------- Comment #2 From cendio 2017-01-25 15:13:35 -------
It seems like HTTP/1.1 expands caching support by introducing new tags used in
headers and other things:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/246859/http-1-0-vs-1-1
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7234
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Caching

After upgrading ThinLinc, recent versions of Safari doesn't clear the cache
automatically. My guess is that this happens because we do not use any of these
new HTTP/1.1 caching mechanisms which Safari seems to depend on.

The workaround for this is obviously to manually clear the browser cache. But
when implementing this bug, we should take this into account.
------- Comment #4 From cendio 2017-01-26 10:30:07 -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> It seems like HTTP/1.1 expands caching support by introducing new tags used in
> headers and other things:
> 
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/246859/http-1-0-vs-1-1
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7234
> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Caching
> 
> After upgrading ThinLinc, recent versions of Safari doesn't clear the cache
> automatically. My guess is that this happens because we do not use any of these
> new HTTP/1.1 caching mechanisms which Safari seems to depend on.
> 
> The workaround for this is obviously to manually clear the browser cache. But
> when implementing this bug, we should take this into account.

Actually, we don't even have basic cache control in our web server. See bug
5711.