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: Rich Salz <rsalz@osf.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 19:27:40 -0500
Message-Id: <9512290027.AA21928@sulphur.osf.org>
To: rg@server.net
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
>>Jeffrey Mogul writes:
>> But I still assert that the optimistic approach is "better" 
>> (perhaps not "best") if one believes that, most of the time,
>> RTTs do matter and servers will not reject PUT-like methods.

>>While I agree with you overall, I don't buy this.  The first PUT
>>in any session will almost -always- be rejected.

I disagree.  Imagine a WWW-based conferencing system that is like
a super version of Usenet or Notes.  The URL could be a Message-ID
generated by the client and "meta-data" in the headers and/or body
would let the server link it into the right place(s) in the
document tree(/web).

I think such systems are possible -- heck, I want one now :) -- and
that they will have automated gateways doing lots of puts as they
feed tickerdata or Usenet into the web.  The extra RTT will be a bad
thing.  We're seeing this right now with NNTP.
	/r$
Received on Thursday, 28 December 1995 16:33:18 EST

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