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

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-09.txt

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 10:24:47 -0800
Message-ID: <CABP7RbcoVLyoE1n24L=S_OeARaZ36FiHZhRNVCESNtYP=sSV3w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Ilari Liusvaara <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
+1... I have many cases where we abort based on nothing but
Content-Type and other headers, without ever actually looking at the
body of the post. If we can fail fast and cancel the body, then

(of course, multiplexing sequences of non-idempotent / non-safe
methods is extremely tricky in itself, but that's a separate issue..
developers need to be aware that just because they receive a response
code, doesn't mean it's ok to fire off the next request...)

- James

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Martin Thomson
<martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5 December 2013 10:13, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com> wrote:
>> True, but I've never seen a PUT or POST that does not depend on the whole request body to (safely) determine success.
> I have :)  There are a few cases where I've ignored POST bodies
> because there was nothing that I could sensibly do with the
> information, or I knew that I was going to ignore it.  Actually quite
> a few cases.  Think "my policy says that you get X, no matter what".
> It's usually not that much data to ignore, but the response was 200 or
> 201 in most cases (though it could still be 4xx or 5xx).
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2013 18:25:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:21 UTC