W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: Out-of-order Frames

From: (wrong string) 陈智昌 <willchan@chromium.org>
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 12:47:24 -0700
Message-ID: <CAA4WUYjv5ZHqjo7EujCqEJ=djbChfLzNAQT+meo-W77xjdyYkA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Pullara <spullara@gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I'm having difficulty fully understanding the problem and the proposal. Can
you clarify?

* What do you mean by "frame"? Do you mean frames in the HTTP/2 framing
layer? Frames in the framing layer can appear in any order (subject to a
few rules), so I don't know what out-of-order frames means. Or do you mean
like video frames?
* If you meant video frames, then if you separate the video into multiple
resources, there's no reason the resources can't be sent "out of order",
since at the HTTP level there's no concept of order among resources.

On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Sam Pullara <spullara@gmail.com> wrote:

> Commonly in dynamically generated websites there are sections of content
> that are static and parts that are calculated on a per request basis. The
> current best practice for accelerating the delivery of a page like this
> involves leaving identifiable DOM elements where the dynamic content would
> appear, flushing the entire static page, and then flushing JavaScript
> script nodes as calculations complete (e.g. Facebook's BigPipe and deferred
> rendering in mustache.java). This practice only works for HTML pages (with
> JavaScript enabled) and offers no acceleration for other types of content
> delivered over HTTP.
> One possible solution to this problem would be to allow for out-of-order
> frames where the static frames are sent as quickly as the connection allows
> and dynamically generated frames are then sent later as they become
> available on the server. We would likely not want to enable this in general
> and would likely need to negotiate this behavior between client and server.
> Looking at the spec, frames might not be the right place but something on
> top of frames because of the size limitations.
> Has something like this been discussed before? Would this be the right
> mechanism or are there better ways to do it?
> Thanks,
> Sam
Received on Saturday, 22 June 2013 19:47:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:13 UTC