Re: PROPOSAL: i99 Pipelining Problems

Lacking any feedback or additional proposals, I'm closing this issue  
with no spec changes. If someone can build consensus on text to add,  
we can reopen for that.


On 07/04/2008, at 5:34 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

>
> On 07/04/2008, at 6:19 PM, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
>> Comments aiding implementers in how to deal with the current mess of
>> clearly broken and non-compliant implementations is best placed in a
>> separate informal document outside the standard documenting known  
>> bugs
>> and how to deal with them. The focus in the standard text itself  
>> should
>> be longterm interoperability. These implementations is very likely to
>> decline over time, and having such comments in the standard text  
>> itself
>> only adds confusion.
>
> There's that document again. Any volunteers to edit it?
>
>
>> So far there is no evidence that the amount of broken  
>> implementations is
>> so high that implementing pipelining isn't possible or useful. In  
>> fact I
>> would say the opposite has already been proved in the wild with  
>> several
>> non-browser applications making very successful use of pipelining.
>
> I don't agree. AIUI those non-browser applications have been  
> successful because pipelining has been used under controlled  
> conditions; i.e., with a known workload, and a limited pool of  
> implementations.
>
> Perhaps my proposal wasn't focused on the right aspect of interop;  
> broken implementations are part of the problem, but the other is the  
> nature of pipelining itself (e.g., forcing complexity and  
> uncertainty on the client WRT what the optimal use of pipelining  
> is). Would you be comfortable adding text like that?
>
>
>> It's
>> true that enabling pipelinng is hard for the major browser vendors as
>> their users expect them to deal with pretty much every crappy  
>> server out
>> there no matter how broken it is, but thats a position they have  
>> placed
>> themselves in.  I would be very glad the day the major browsers  
>> started
>> to actually alert the user when a broken server is detected instead  
>> of
>> just silently work around it, placing some pressure on getting  
>> servers
>> fixed.
>
>
> Lots of people argued for something to be said about pipelining in  
> previous threads; this proposal is the end result, although it's  
> pretty watered down. I'd like to hear from those who put in their . 
> 02 earlier; does this add any value at all, or should we just close  
> this issue with no action?
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
>
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/

Received on Thursday, 17 April 2008 02:11:58 UTC