Re: CONTINUATION Frame Size

On 13 August 2013 02:21, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've been told that [HEADERS interleaving]
> wasn't an option and that continuation frames MUST be contiguous...
> although I personally don't buy it.

As long as HEADERS depend on some sort of state, then it is easier to
require exclusive access to that state (mutex style) rather than deal
with potential concurrency issues.  Until it is proven otherwise, it
might be reasonable to assume that any scheme permitting interleaving
is only going to be more complicated than the current scheme.  I am,
of course, happy to be shown a scheme that enables interleaving
without increasing complexity.

Received on Tuesday, 13 August 2013 17:00:30 UTC