- From: Charles Fry <fry@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 10:28:13 -0400
- To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>
- Cc: "Jamie Lokier" <jamie@shareable.org>, "Brian McBarron" <bpm@google.com>, gears-eng@googlegroups.com, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Alex Rousskov" <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
A few more thoughts on URLs and ETags: - While it isn't clear in the examples on the wiki page, the initial handshake is optional. In other words, it represents one extreme end of the protocol, but the primitive requirement is that unique identifier (whether URL or ETag) be obtained. This could very well be present in an HTML page, for example, allowing a resumable upload without the initial handshake. - Regarding ETags vs. URLs, one point of reference for me is CGI scripts. A single CGI script running behind a fixed URL should (in my mind) be able to perform a resumable upload, but this would require a unique identification mechanism other than the URL. Charles On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 18:36, Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com> wrote: > OK. I agree that doing it in hardware is more expensive (as you have no > choice but to involve a vendor), but doing it in software is relatively > easy; high-performance servers that can act as intermediaries are getting > pretty common, and pretty performant. > > Cheers, > > > On 17/09/2008, at 9:25 PM, Jamie Lokier wrote: > >> Mark Nottingham wrote: >>>> >>>> But I agree that you might be able to use existing URL-based front-end >>>> load-balancing kit, and that might reduce the cost of implementation >>>> substantially. >>> >>> Is there a hidden assumption there that this is done in hardware? >> >> No. By "kit" I mean readily available hardware and/or software, which >> does URL-based affinity HTTP request forwarding for load balancing. >> >> -- Jamie > > -- > Mark Nottingham mnot@yahoo-inc.com > > >
Received on Friday, 19 September 2008 14:29:03 UTC