W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2013

Re: [#228] PUSH_PROMISE with CONTINUATION can end a stream

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 00:58:38 +0100
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUy4qmx6pNJq+6W4=a0R180rgVVNbDiVxiFyWVd5pWVZQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 13 August 2013 00:38, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote:
> I think it might be better to move the logic off rather than add flags for
> all frames that might be continued. This keeps the mechanism as simple as
> possible -- i.e. extend the previous frame by "length" bytes until you see
> END_HEADERS flag.

I could be convinced to accept that reasoning - fewer places to look
for bits seems like a good thing.  I was hoping that it would be the
last frame, but given the nature of continuations, this is tempting.
What do others think?

END_HEADERS is on HEADERS + PUSH_PROMISE + CONTINUATION, but
END_STREAM is only on HEADERS.  Later, END_MESSAGE might only be on
HEADERS or DATA, depending on how things work out.
Received on Monday, 12 August 2013 23:59:05 UTC

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