Re: #541: CONTINUATION

On 4 July 2014 08:58, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> That’s what led me to say that we didn’t have consensus to add jumbo
> frames; it’s been discussed at length, and I’m not inclined to revisit it
> unless there’s genuinely new information that’s capable of changing
> peoples’ minds. I asked this question to find out why jumbo advocates were
> so down on CONTINUATION, not to reconsider jumbo.


Well it is hard to express the criticism of continuations without
mentioning other solutions that meet the same requirements without the
uglyness.

If we are genuinely considering ways to remove the uglyness of
continuations, then I think it is not reasonable to reject any solution
that walks/talks/quacks like jumbo frames (as after all - continuations ARE
jumbo frames).     I think it is better to try to understand why jumbo
frames were rejected last time and try to re-propose them so that they
satisfy all the issue and meet all the objects to at least "can live with"
level.

That's exactly what a few of us are currently doing.... stand by and please
don't reject just because it walks/talks/quacks like jumbo frames.

cheers





-- 
Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales
http://www.webtide.com  advice and support for jetty and cometd.