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

Re: Pipelining clarification

From: Brian Pane <brianp@brianp.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:27:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAbTgTuGXJLjXH52N1P7Hn67vZVAGLJtwedeLRqfEDi10Swp1Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
It probably wouldn't hurt to adjust the wording to that section to
clarify the "for which a response was not received" intent. Would the
following phrasing be an improvement?

"A client that has issued pipelined requests MUST also be prepared to
resend any requests for which it has not received responses if the
server closes the connection before sending responses to all of the
requests."

Thanks,
-Brian

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 8:08 AM, Eric Lawrence
<ericlaw@exchange.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> 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*.
>
> -Eric
>
> -----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
>
> Hi,
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-16#section-7.1.2.2 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?
>
>
>
> Jan
>
> P.S. What would, BTW,  be the most appropriate place to discuss pipelining issues and ask questions?
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 26 September 2011 15:28:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:47 GMT