W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2008

Re: PROPOSAL: i99 Pipelining Problems

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2008 11:15:23 +0200
Message-ID: <47F7432B.2030301@gmx.de>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Apr 4, 2008, at 6:00 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Hmm.
>> Any volunteers for providing spec-ready text?
> "Shit happens.  Deal with it."
> Seriously, there is no reason to specify all the possible ways
> in which messages might get lost on an unreliable connection.
> The only thing I would change is to resurrect my original design
> for the Keep-Alive header, which indicates how many more requests
> are allowed on a given persistent connection.  The others are just

Are you referring to the stuff discussed in 

> single point, non-reproducible bugs.


One point of confusion that comes up from time to time is the issue of 
ordering -- can a client that sends pipelined requests rely on the 
results arriving in the same order.

My understanding of the spec is "yes, of course", but I recall people 
arguing otherwise.

BR, Julian
Received on Saturday, 5 April 2008 09:16:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:45 UTC