W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1997

RE: ISSUE: MUST a client wait for 100 when doing PUT or POST re quests?

From: David W. Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 18:58:22 -0700 (PDT)
To: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
Cc: John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu>, "'frystyk@w3.org'" <frystyk@w3.org>, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com, lawrence@agranat.com, rlgray@raleigh.ibm.com
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.96.970610185147.25353A-100000@shell1.aimnet.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3477

On Tue, 10 Jun 1997, Paul Leach wrote:

> This example only seems to require that the client wait for 100 if it is
> pipelining -- otherwise it won't know which (possibly non-idempotent)
> requests have or haven't been processed, which is a correctness problem.
> Other scenarios show that efficiency might suffer if the client didn't
> wait for a 100.

Seems to me that for correctness, it that is the issue, 100 CONTINUE
does not much for the problem.  The correctness issue CAN ONLY be resolved
by the client waiting for the 200 OK after submitting the data. 
In fact, if correctness is the issue, the 100 CONTINUE wait breaks
pipelining twice by requiring two waits instead of one.

I would go further and argue that it would be unusual to pipeline   
requests after the POST/PUT anyway. 

Dave Morris
Received on Tuesday, 10 June 1997 19:04:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:20 UTC