Re: HTTP 1.1 As Universal Transport?

Rick Troth wrote:
>         We can probably all point to examples of other people
> and other products that have  "bitten off more than they can chew".
> Things that do one or two things really well,  and then grow into
> hydra headed monsters,  trying to be the be-all and end-all.
> Don't let this happen to HTTP.

Rick & co,
I don't want a hydra either but I have not yet found any alternative
to HTTP that today offers
  firewall support
built-in in the WWW-client-products that have a 90% market share.

I think that the state of things for systems like Java requires
a quick fix (even a kludge).  This has already been done in
HTTP 1.0 by Netscape (keep-alive).  The semantics of the fix
should be _brutally simple_ while we are waiting for a distant
hopefully much better solution:

Something like
Server=>EVENT <eventnumber> <entity-body>
Client=>GOT_IT <eventnumber> <entity-body>
# These messages would be independent of the usual GET and POST stuff.
# There must first be a message from the client
  requesting a Connection=Events feature!
# No caching of any kind
# Naturally all messages and responses are still atomic.
If you need good reponse you may have to open two (or more)

As every client, server and proxy must anyway be rewritten to
support persistant connections (a bigger change than
my additions IMHO) I would go for a change now.
An internet without a firewall-supported, encrypted
asynchronous, persistant protocol is simply not very

But, really.  If you can get NG to run (in Netscape, Java, Proxies
and servers) within 12 months or so I will gladly take back every word.

Best Regards
Anders Rundgren

PS.  I will not bother you guys anymore unless you want it! DS

Received on Friday, 17 May 1996 02:54:18 UTC