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

Re: Prefer Draft Feedback

From: James Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 15:50:25 -0800
Message-ID: <CABP7RbfTHgVtGT=FgqAGcggXquyxqyv+qA8d6k5t3ehHbszjiQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Oh.. the conditional request is definitely an interesting case. I'd
definitely be open to adding some additional discussion.

On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6 December 2011 07:29, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>> On 2011-12-05 21:20, James Snell wrote:
>>> Ok... well like I said, I don't have a problem pulling this if it does
>>> overlap. For now, however, until it's clear that something else
>>> adequately covers this requirement, I'll keep it in.
>>
>> Martin?
>
> The 'wait' tag seems perfectly appropriate to me for monitoring
> changes in resource state (aka long -polling).  As specified in -04,
> it works, though it's not necessarily clear from the text.
>
> My current thoughts are that you can have a resource with a particular
> state, indicated by an ETag.  By using If-None-Match (or one of the
> other conditional headers) and Prefer: wait=x, then you can request
> that the server only provide an update when the resource changes,
> within that interval.  It's a new use of the conditional headers, as
> well as a slightly different spin on the wait header, but I think that
> it's workable.
>
> Of course, you could use the 'wait' tag without anything fancy if the
> resource simply had specific logic for long-polling.  It seems less
> nice that way.
>
> I might be able to draft a paragraph or two to add if folks are
> amenable to this.
>
> --Martin
Received on Monday, 5 December 2011 23:51:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:50 GMT