- From: Graham Klyne <GK@dial.pipex.com>
- Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 12:47:59 +0000
- To: discuss@apps.ietf.org
- Cc: ietf-applcore@imc.org
I perceive that there is an early decision that this group could make with very significant downstream consequences. It concerns the handling of multiple overlapped requests. (A) The approach taken by IMAP/AP is to build the concurrency into the basic request/response protocol, including identifying tags as part of the data stream. (B) The aproach taken by HTTP-NG is to have a separate multiplexing layer that allows a number of virtual duplex stream communications to be conducted on a single underlying connection. Thus, each concurrent request/response is conducted in a separate data stream. I see parallels here with development of multitasking operating systems: (A) with asynchronous notification mechanisms built into the operaing system interface (e.g. VMS); (B) systems built using a synchronous basic interface and multithreading to achieve concurrency within a process (e.g. Unix). The MUX approach involves layering (with the overhead that implies), while request/response concurrency adds complexity to the application protocol. I don't have a definite view on which way is best, but I tend to lean in favour of the mux approach. #g PS: is T/TCP alive or dead these days? ------------ Graham Klyne (GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Tuesday, 9 February 1999 07:48:06 UTC