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

Re: Multi-GET, extreme compression?

From: Dr Robert Mattson <robert@mattson.com.au>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 12:21:38 +1100
Message-Id: <FE56B9BB-A0D0-49FD-9DCB-8B01771933B2@mattson.com.au>
Cc: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Helge Heß <helge.hess@opengroupware.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>, Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Hi James,

A similar idea was proposed at www01, i think it was called 'n for the price of 1: bundling web objects for more ...'  Can't recall the rest. Google is your friend here.


Sent on a mobile device, typos expected.

On 18/02/2013, at 11:58 AM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:

> A requester does not necessarily need to know everything they are
> getting in advance.
> That is, assume that a server defines a set of N resources and assigns
> that set a singular url that represents the entire collection. When I
> do..
>  MGET /resource/set HTTP/2.0
> The server responds by opening N server-push response streams back to
> the client, each associated with the original MGET. Each would have
> it's own Content-Location and Cache-Control mechanisms allowing
> intermediate caches to still do the right thing. The client does not
> necessarily know what all it is getting from the server in advance but
> knows it needs to be prepared to handle multiple items.
> Alternatively, the MGET could include multiple individual URLs, in
> which case it still actually behaves the same way. The only difference
> is that the client has a better understanding of exactly what it's
> wanting to retrieve.
> example:
> MGET /assets/*.js HTTP/2.0   --> Get all the javascript files
> MGET /assets/*.png HTTP/2.0  --> Get all the image files
> If the cache is able to keep track of exactly which resources were
> pushed in response to the MGET, then caches could keep right on doing
> the right thing.
> Since the resources are sent via server push, the server is
> responsible for determining the priority for which resources get sent.
> Yes, largely theoretical and easily abused for sure. But ought to at
> least be something worth investigating.
> - James
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
>> MGET (or whatever batch request) implies you know all of what you're
>> requesting when you're requesting it, which is rarely the case.
>> As a result, my guess is that this won't solve the prioritization issue for
>> the browser.
>> -=R
>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 3:07 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> An mget that leverages server push in http/2 and individual cacheable
>>> response streams would be very interesting and could address at least some
>>> of the prioritization issues.
>>> On Feb 17, 2013 12:17 PM, "Helge Heß" <helge.hess@opengroupware.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Feb 17, 2013, at 11:18 AM, Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name> wrote:
>>>>> We added a multiget REPORT to CalDAV (RFC4791) and CardDAV (RFC6352)
>>>>> which is used by clients when sync'ing a lot of resources (e.g., initial
>>>>> account setup). The one major criticism has been lack of cacheability of the
>>>>> individual resources included in the multiget.
>>>> The other major criticisms being:
>>>> a) content needs to be XML encoded
>>>> b) only allows for GETs, not for other operations
>>>> I'd also like to see a generic, HTTP-level BATCH request. Please lets not
>>>> do 'just' an MGET.
>>>> hh
Received on Monday, 18 February 2013 01:22:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:10 UTC