W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > January 2006

RE: The deep difference between request/response and fire-and-forget

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 15:13:38 -0800
Message-ID: <E16EB59B8AEDF445B644617E3C1B3C9C7CA366@repbex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Rich Salz" <rsalz@datapower.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich Salz [mailto:rsalz@datapower.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 9:08 PM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: RE: The deep difference between request/response and
fire-and-
> forget
> 
> > I would say that if closing the connection (wow, I originally typed
that
> > as if close thing connection..) without waiting for a response is
> > invalid HTTP, THEN that means that HTTP can't do Fire and Forget AND
> > that an application that would be built on Fire and Forget couldn't
be
> > deployed on HTTP.
> 
> I'm not so sure.  Why can't you do HTTP/FaF by saying that the HTTP
server
> response is consumed (per the HTTP protocol spec) but ignored?

I would think that consuming the response is the opposite of "forget".
Consuming the response is effectively not fire and forget.  Isn't that
the key difference between req/resp and f-a-f?

Dave
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2006 23:15:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:21 GMT