W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws@w3.org > July 2001

Re: open transport protocol for aysnc web services?

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 21:17:38 -0700
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: www-ws@w3.org
Message-ID: <20010710211728.A4538@akamai.com>

On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 03:58:13PM -0400, Mark Baker wrote:
> Mark Nottingham wrote:
> > It's not so much that as the decoupling of the request and response.
> > In other words, if they make a request, keep the persistent
> > connection open, and then send responses upon events, the 1->n
> > request/response relationship will confuse proxies.
> Confuse them any more than any other use of persistent connections?

Hmm, what do you mean by 'other'?

> > Of course, this
> > won't be the case if they keep a 1-1 relationship (perhaps by doing
> > request...response,request...response,request...).
> They support that mode as well, though as a special case of a
> notification replay feature.
> There's pros and cons of both approaches, but at least they provide a
> choice.

That's very good.

> > However, using persistent connections in this manner isn't too
> > friendly to proxies; it consumes resources on them, and many will
> > close idle connections after a fairly short timeout. When this
> > happens, it becomes inefficient to use the HTTP, as you have to
> > continually re-establish the connection.
> True, but I believe that's "just" another consideration when deciding
> which approach to use.  If neither is suitable for you, I suppose the
> next step would be to look at something other than HTTP.  That has its
> costs too.

True, as long as their customers go in with their eyes open.


Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist
Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA USA)
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2001 00:17:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:37:06 UTC