W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: HEADERS and flow control

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 12:37:32 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNed4EqNK6hjZa4KwiG33Se-v54HKV_HWi2DpCryERvucA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Or you can change the opcode of the other HEADERS...

What I'm proposing is effectively a rethink of the merging of HEADERs and
SYN_STREAM, because users have brought up usecases which would be
troublesome with the way it is done now.
-=R


On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 9 May 2014 12:10, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What creates a surprising corner case?
>
>
> What you are proposing:
>
> function isFlowControlled(frame) {
>   return frame.type === 'DATA';
> }
>
> becomes:
>
> var firstHeadersDone = false;
> function isFlowControlled(frame) {
>   if (frame.type === 'DATA') {
>     return true;
>   }
>   if (!firstHeadersDone) {
>     if (frame.type === 'HEADERS' || frame.type === 'CONTINUATION') {
>       firstHeadersDone = frame.flags.END_HEADERS;
>     }
>     return false;
>   }
>   return frame.type === 'HEADERS' || frame.type === 'CONTINUATION';
> }
>
> Or something like that.  That's not particularly straightforward.
> Such complexity requires justification.
>
Received on Friday, 9 May 2014 19:37:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:30 UTC