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

Re: Pipelining clarification

From: Jan Algermissen <jan.algermissen@nordsc.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 17:35:32 +0200
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A0BA4C57-0603-42EB-897F-C0485FD5D251@nordsc.com>
To: Brian Pane <brianp@brianp.net>

On Sep 26, 2011, at 5:27 PM, Brian Pane wrote:

> 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?

Yes, sounds perfect. Though I cannot say, whether it is just me that has difficulties with the text..

Jan

> 
> "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 15:35:58 GMT

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