W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1995

Re: 'PUT' transaction reconsidered (was Re: two-phase send concerns )

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 22:49:02 -0800
To: Dave Long <dave@navisoft.com>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <9512272249.aa29437@paris.ics.uci.edu>
> As you can see, the NaviServers already support a full-duplex single
> exchange (they need to do the bitbucketing anyway, for other reasons),

Yep, the server will need to do the bitbucketing just to prevent a TCP
reset (when communicating over TCP).  You may want to try closing only
the write-half of the server's connection after the error response
and let the read buffer become full (which will lower the client's 
write window eventually) instead of bitbucketing.  Unfortunately, I have
no idea if this is portable across all TCP implementations, since closing
only half a socket may be incorrectly implemented in some OS's.

> and I was going to get the logic into NaviPress Real Soon Now.
> (Sorry, Roy, a bunch of OEM work came up in the last couple of weeks...)

No problem -- everyone is busy right now.  I'm happy to see that you made
it onto the list.

> If y'all have your hearts set on dual exchange PUT, or can tell me
> why this single-exchange is too simplistic, I'll abandon efforts on it.

On the contrary, I think you should find the best implementation for your
needs and present that to the WG.  Right now, we suffer from inadequate
implementation experience with PUT (and other editing requirements).


 ...Roy T. Fielding
    Department of Information & Computer Science    (fielding@ics.uci.edu)
    University of California, Irvine, CA 92717-3425    fax:+1(714)824-4056
    http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/
Received on Wednesday, 27 December 1995 23:08:52 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:38 EDT