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: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 12:53:30 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7RbfKeGYO8buj5R-CpVLGr5pGOCx22BoG5CDN-igv237bNQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Cc: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@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>
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:

> 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).
>
>
+1 .. I've had similar experience. It's one of those things that sounds
great in theory but in practice it just doesn't work effectively... at
least not well enough to justify it's use.

- James


> 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 19:54:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 20 July 2012 19:54:24 GMT