- From: Kris Zyp <kzyp@sitepen.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 08:34:24 -0600
- To: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "Morgan L" <morganl.webkit@yahoo.com>
- Cc: "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>, <public-webapi@w3.org>
> If the problem we are trying to solve is preventing potentially long- > lived requests from blowing out the connection limit I think it would be > better to either: > > 1) Add an explicit XHR property that indicates this request may be > long-lived - this would not only bypass the connection limit but would > also indicate to the UA that it should not pipeline other requests on the > same connection, if it supports pipelining. > > 2) Never count XHR-initiated http requests towards the per-server > connection limit. > .... not seem necessary for the goal of bypassing the connection limit on > the UA side. And it seems that an explicit XHR property for this would be > more clear. I agree, I think #1 is the way to go. I don't like #2, because connection limits really are valuable for minimizing server load, and even can help prevent DOS attacks. As I just mentioned in the other email, "Connection: close" is not an appropriate form of advice, IMO. I think that an explicit property that provides advice for UAs is best approach, and that it should be a number-based advice, not a boolean, so that it could be used more effectively and flexibly in heuristic algorithms for making informed pipelining decisions. Kris
Received on Monday, 10 March 2008 14:35:20 UTC