W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: usability of 100-continue, was: HTTP2 Expression of Interest : Squid

From: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 15:20:47 -0500
Message-ID: <CACuKZqFOK7Dh-1rToQ3LFk1RJxK+bZZ=8MU3bbJZ+5zoWV11ng@mail.gmail.com>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, Osama Mazahir <OSAMAM@microsoft.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>, Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>
I always feel that this mechanism - ask permission first - should be
addressed by the app protocol, not by HTTP.

On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 2:53 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 02:35:00PM -0500, Zhong Yu wrote:
>> > What are the reasons for such great efforts to keep connection alive
>> > when a 100-continue fails? Is it really a big deal to drop connections
>> > once in a while?
>> Some webservice clients make extensive use of Expect: 100-continue over
>> connection pools to avoid sending useless data and to keep the connections
>> open. In fact, we're realizing that in the end it does not work (unless
>> chunked encoding is used).
> +1 .. I've had similar experience. It's one of those things that sounds
> great in theory but in practice it just doesn't work effectively... at least
> not well enough to justify it's use.
> - James
>> In the end, these WS clients might as well not send Expect and save one
>> round trip and one packet in each direction since the only benefit of
>> it goes away in case of failure, which is the only reason for using
>> Expect.
>> Regards,
>> Willy
Received on Friday, 20 July 2012 20:21:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:03 UTC