- From: Rich Salz <rsalz@osf.org>
- Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 19:27:40 -0500
- To: rg@server.net
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
>>Jeffrey Mogul writes: >> But I still assert that the optimistic approach is "better" >> (perhaps not "best") if one believes that, most of the time, >> RTTs do matter and servers will not reject PUT-like methods. >>While I agree with you overall, I don't buy this. The first PUT >>in any session will almost -always- be rejected. I disagree. Imagine a WWW-based conferencing system that is like a super version of Usenet or Notes. The URL could be a Message-ID generated by the client and "meta-data" in the headers and/or body would let the server link it into the right place(s) in the document tree(/web). I think such systems are possible -- heck, I want one now :) -- and that they will have automated gateways doing lots of puts as they feed tickerdata or Usenet into the web. The extra RTT will be a bad thing. We're seeing this right now with NNTP. /r$
Received on Thursday, 28 December 1995 16:33:18 UTC