W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2007

Re: Updated PATCH draft

From: Subbu Allamaraju <subbu.allamaraju@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 21:39:23 -0800
Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, atom-protocol <atom-protocol@imc.org>
Message-Id: <4EF8E7B9-E599-48AA-887F-43D55078AA27@gmail.com>
To: Robert Siemer <Robert.Siemer-httpwg@backsla.sh>

On Dec 8, 2007, at 6:42 PM, Robert Siemer wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 03:03:47PM -0800, Subbu Allamaraju wrote:
>> I have a comment on this paragraph of this draft.
>> "Clients are advised to take caution when sending multiple PATCH  
>> requests,
>> or sequences of requests that include PATCH, over a pipelined  
>> connection as
>> there are no guarantees that pipelined requests will be processed  
>> by the
>> server in the same order in which the client sends them."
>> Since 2616 says that clients SHOULD NOT pipeline non-idempotent  
>> methods, and
>> since PATCH is a  non-idempotent method, any reason why a similar
>> conformance level is not presented here?
> Because it is already in 2616 and the draft points to it, no?

Or may be I am reading this too closely.
>> Secondly, are there cases when pipelined requests will be processed
>> out of order?
> At least, could be processed in parallel or decomposed into
> non-pipelined requests in the proxy chain and overtake each other this
> way.

OK. That makes sense.

Received on Sunday, 9 December 2007 05:39:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:44 UTC