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

Re: MUST a client wait for 100 when doing PUT or POST?

From: Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 10:35:26 -0400
Message-Id: <199706111435.KAA02649@devnix.agranat.com>
To: HTTP Working Group List <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3488
>>>>> "DM" == David W. Morris:

DM> I think that combined with making the 100 CONTINUE an explicitly requested
DM> optional response would provide the step wise operation which would
DM> provide the efficiency when needed by assuring the client the ability to
DM> expect the 100 CONTINUE but have no requirement for any server to always
DM> response with 100 CONTINUE. I think a win-win.

>>>>> "JF" == John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu>:

JF> This is an eminently sensible idea.  The client could *choose* to wait
JF> for "100 CONTINUE" and signal this choice to the server with an
JF> appropriate header.

  On what basis should the client decide that waiting for the 100 is
  important for the current PUT or POST?  The client does not have any
  way to know what the specific semantics of the operation are.  In
  fact, the server often will not know either - it is just serving a
  form.  Even adding HTML markup (which I am NOT advocating) would not
  solve the problem, as not all PUT and POST operations will be a
  result of the use of HTML.

Scott Lawrence           EmWeb Embedded Server       <lawrence@agranat.com>
Agranat Systems, Inc.        Engineering            http://www.agranat.com/
Received on Wednesday, 11 June 1997 07:37:23 UTC

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