W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 2000

RE: On pipelining -Reply

From: Daniel Hellerstein <DANIELH@mailbox.econ.ag.gov>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 12:19:33 -0500
Message-Id: <s8884f2e.007@mailbox.econ.ag.gov>
To: lawrence@agranat.com
Cc: http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com
>If request1 is a GET, HEAD, TRACE, or OPTIONS, then I would say that
>the server could legitimately assume that it had no side effects.
>One could be more conservative and assume that any CGI (or CGI-like)
>resource had side effects.  Having assumed that there were no side
>effects it might be reasonable to overlap the processing, if you
>have the buffer space to spare.

That's a reasonable notion.  However, in practice it might be a bit
complicated (i.e.; server side includes in GETs of html documents
cause changes in  "state" variables.).

It seems that the tradeoff is between speed and
For now, I'll stick with sequential resolution, and then 
consider how to detect circumstances where 
sequentiality can be loosened.
Received on Friday, 21 January 2000 17:21:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:24 UTC