W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > February 2008

Re: Extra Connection Support Proposal

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:46:30 -0800
Message-ID: <47C5DA36.1060902@sicking.cc>
To: Kris Zyp <kris@sitepen.com>
CC: Stewart Brodie <stewart.brodie@antplc.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Kris Zyp <kzyp@sitepen.com>, "Web API WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>

Kris Zyp wrote:
>>> you click on a link, does the link get followed?  That is the same 
>>> sort of
>>> scenario, isn't it?
>>
>> At least firefox will abort any existing downloads for the current 
>> page when the user clicks a link. But if you're downloading these 
>> images in another tab you might have this problem yeah. Though if it's 
>> simply multiple images the new page will likely get squeezed in 
>> between two of the image downloads.
> And there is an important distinction between images being downloaded 
> that consume connections and a long-lived response that consume a 
> connection. With normal responses, two connection usually provides a 
> means for relatively continuous utilization of resources. Most of the 
> time two connections provide enough requests that the usually the server 
> is processing a request, or a response is downloading. Either way, 
> something is being done, and it is quite reasonable for further requests 
> to be queued, since the server/connection is working to finish the 
> response as fast as possible within it's capability. On the otherhand, 
> when a long-lived response is paused indefinitely until a the server has 
> a message to be sent, there is nothing being done. Nothing is being 
> downloaded, and the server isn't working on anything, and requests can 
> be queued indefinitely even though nothing is happening.

Yup, it seems like people agree with this. It's just the proposal to put 
it as a feature on XHR that seems to be disliked by a few people, me 
included.

Doing this on an HTTP level seems like the right solution to me. Though 
i'm not sure what working group would then be appropriate for 
standardizing it...

/ Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2008 21:46:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 February 2008 21:46:39 GMT