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

RE: Pipelining clarification

From: Eric Lawrence <ericlaw@exchange.microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 15:08:09 +0000
To: Jan Algermissen <jan.algermissen@nordsc.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <479CAD406474484E8FA0E39E694732C017DE15E9@DF-M14-02.exchange.corp.microsoft.com>
That interpretation wouldn't make any sense. The notion is that the client must be prepared to resend any request *for which a response was not received*.


-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jan Algermissen
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 4:17 AM
To: HTTP Working Group
Subject: Pipelining clarification


http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-16#section- states

"Clients MUST also be prepared to resend their requests
   if the server closes the connection before sending all of the
   corresponding responses."

Does that imply that a client needs to resend *all* of the pipelined requests if not all responses are received?

If so, this implies (for me at least) that the client cannot use a response of a pipelined request until all responses have successfully been received

Is that a correct interpretation?

Practically, this would limit the usability of pipelined requests in async contexts because the client needs to collect all response before using them. Hence the question: what is the rationale for needing to re-do *all* requests? Can't I just redo those requests that I did not receive until the pipelining got interrupted?


P.S. What would, BTW,  be the most appropriate place to discuss pipelining issues and ask questions? 
Received on Monday, 26 September 2011 15:08:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:58 UTC