W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: About draft-nottingham-http-pipeline-01.txt

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 17:13:55 +1000
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <864BBDDB-97AD-4794-B45B-CA966C5D5EF4@mnot.net>
To: Brian Pane <brianp@brianp.net>

On 27/04/2011, at 10:43 AM, Brian Pane wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 11:56 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> [...]
>> A fair amount of time has passed since the first version (or even most
>> recent version!) of the draft, and in my conversations with vendors --
>> especially Moz's Patrick McManus -- I've come to realise that the draft
>> is probably too conservative. I.e., There's a desire to have pipelining on
>> by default, without any opt-in or special mechanisms from the server,
>> using heuristics to back off if a problem is encountered.
> 
> Does this also imply the use of heuristics up-front to decide whether a
> given request is a suitable candidate for pipelining?  E.g., I can imagine
> a client implementation doing something like this: "if method is GET and
> request-URI doesn't contain a query string and the request was not
> issued via JavaScript then assume it's safe to pipeline."  If so, I also
> anticipate that web app developers will start designing toward the
> browsers' heuristics.


Well, nothing prohibits a browser from doing that, but the heuristics that I'm seeing are very carefully watching for errors and slowdowns, and adjusting appropriately. 

I think that using a query-string as an indicator of whether something will block server-side isn't such a great heuristic. YMMV.

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2011 07:14:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:40 GMT