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

Re: usability of 100-continue, was: HTTP2 Expression of Interest : Squid

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 21:46:47 +0200
To: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
Cc: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, Osama Mazahir <OSAMAM@microsoft.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>, Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <20120720194647.GE26154@1wt.eu>
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 02:35:00PM -0500, Zhong Yu wrote:
> What are the reasons for such great efforts to keep connection alive
> when a 100-continue fails? Is it really a big deal to drop connections
> once in a while?

Some webservice clients make extensive use of Expect: 100-continue over
connection pools to avoid sending useless data and to keep the connections
open. In fact, we're realizing that in the end it does not work (unless
chunked encoding is used).

In the end, these WS clients might as well not send Expect and save one
round trip and one packet in each direction since the only benefit of
it goes away in case of failure, which is the only reason for using
Expect.

Regards,
Willy
Received on Friday, 20 July 2012 19:47:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 20 July 2012 19:47:33 GMT