W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: Some proxy needs

From: Adrien W. de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 13:11:02 +0000
To: "Per Buer" <perbu@varnish-software.com>, "Nicolas Mailhot" <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <em9eb1db70-89ed-4336-a2f4-bc9d552c763b@boist>

------ Original Message ------
From: "Per Buer" <perbu@varnish-software.com>
>
>
>Sure. This has been done for years. It was an absolute necessity when dealing
>with earlier versions of IE. Feeding it the first 10 bytes of
>something was considered
>safe enough and would keep the browser from timing out. So giving it
>one byte every
>30 seconds or so would buy us 5 minutes.
>
>I think this is perfectly doable withing the current framework and without the
>need to add further complexities to the protocol.
>
  
it's a hideous hack, it's hard to describe how badly drip-feeding sucks.
  
It doesn't provide any other benefit (unlike progress notifications 
which have many applications).
  
And it doesn't work for scanning PUT or POST, where the client sends 
the whole resource to the intermediary quickly (because it's not being 
sent on) and then times out waiting for any response because the 
intermediary has to upload it to a poorly-connected server at low speed.
  
We can do a lot better.  
Adrien
>
>
>--
>Per Buer
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 10 April 2012 13:12:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:59 GMT