|
|
Posted by Rasmus Lerdorf on 09/02/05 22:19
Chris Shiflett wrote:
> Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>
>> Why modify my test?
>
>
> Because it has less delay. Thus, it's more difficult to tell if the
> browser is requesting the new URL before or after receiving the entire
> response. My script is essentially the same thing, but the script takes
> 30 seconds to execute. It makes the distinction very clear.
>
> The addition of flush() forces the chunked response. You can remove that
> if your server uses chunked transfer encoding without it.
>
>> What did you see in log.txt from my version and on your screen?
>
>
> You would see the output "Count0\nCount1\n..." in the log and the PHP
> web site in the browser. I'm not sure how that's relevant. No browser is
> going to render content from a 302 response, but that doesn't prove that
> it won't wait for it.
Yes it does. The last number in log.txt tells you exactly when the
browser stopped listening to the response and closed the socket because
PHP will abort the script at that point. If what you are saying is
true, how do you explain the fact that you don't see a count all the way
up to 999,999 in my test in the log.txt file?
> I'd be curious to know which browser you're using that behaves
> differently. I'm not saying it's not possible, but it seems weird.
I'm just using Firefox.
-Rasmus
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|