Re: Connection Header

Jim Seidman writes:
>Jeffrey Mogul writes:
>>My own intuition is that we can follow two paths:
>>	(1) Stick with the parallel connection approach, which gives
>>	reasonably good performance today but which might turn into
>>	a global performance disaster in the future.
>>	(2) Encourage people to shift ASAP to an alternative (besides
>>	the WIDTH and HEIGHT tags, several HTTP-level mechanisms have
>>	been proposed).  This might avert future global problems, but
>>	in the short term it might be a while before enough servers
>>	support it to make it highly beneficial.  I would also expect
>>	that in the long run (i.e., with widespread support), it would
>>	improve UPP because you wouldn't have to wait even for the initial
>>	bits of the images to arrive.
>If we go with something like an HTTP-based image hinting scheme, I don't
>think the rate of adoption is a big an issue as you imply.  A browser like
>Netscape could continue to have multiple parallel connections to older
>servers if it wanted to.  Path (1) as you've described is really not a path
>at all - it's just staying with the limits of what we have today.

Path 1 is most definitely a path.  It happens to the be the path that
we'll probably follow if nothing is done, but it doesn't imply that
we will stay within the limits of our network resources ... it only
stays within the limits of our current software implementations.


Received on Wednesday, 28 December 1994 15:44:20 UTC