You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The retryablehttp package utilizes keepalive connections.
It is critical to be able to set a timeout for idle keepalive connections, as the server might time out a connection at the same moment a client sends a request over what it believes to be an active connection. This would result in the client receiving some kind of error.
To prevent such errors, one approach is to set the client’s keepalive timeout shorter than the server’s timeout. Currently, in retryablehttp, one must write implementation-dependent code like this:
The fact that retryablehttp.HTTPClient.Transport is set to a *http.Transport is an implementation detail and not guaranteed to stay the same in future.
Therefore, I would like to request a feature that allows setting the timeout for idle keepalive connections without relying on the specific implementation.
Thank you in advance for considering this feature request.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The
retryablehttp
package utilizes keepalive connections.It is critical to be able to set a timeout for idle keepalive connections, as the server might time out a connection at the same moment a client sends a request over what it believes to be an active connection. This would result in the client receiving some kind of error.
To prevent such errors, one approach is to set the client’s keepalive timeout shorter than the server’s timeout. Currently, in
retryablehttp
, one must write implementation-dependent code like this:The fact that
retryablehttp.HTTPClient.Transport
is set to a*http.Transport
is an implementation detail and not guaranteed to stay the same in future.Therefore, I would like to request a feature that allows setting the timeout for idle keepalive connections without relying on the specific implementation.
Thank you in advance for considering this feature request.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: