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

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-09.txt

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 10:24:47 -0800
Message-ID: <CABP7RbcoVLyoE1n24L=S_OeARaZ36FiHZhRNVCESNtYP=sSV3w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Ilari Liusvaara <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
+1... I have many cases where we abort based on nothing but
Content-Type and other headers, without ever actually looking at the
body of the post. If we can fail fast and cancel the body, then
fantastic.

(of course, multiplexing sequences of non-idempotent / non-safe
methods is extremely tricky in itself, but that's a separate issue..
developers need to be aware that just because they receive a response
code, doesn't mean it's ok to fire off the next request...)

- James

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Martin Thomson
<martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5 December 2013 10:13, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com> wrote:
>> True, but I've never seen a PUT or POST that does not depend on the whole request body to (safely) determine success.
>
> I have :)  There are a few cases where I've ignored POST bodies
> because there was nothing that I could sensibly do with the
> information, or I knew that I was going to ignore it.  Actually quite
> a few cases.  Think "my policy says that you get X, no matter what".
> It's usually not that much data to ignore, but the response was 200 or
> 201 in most cases (though it could still be 4xx or 5xx).
>
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2013 18:25:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:20 UTC