- From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 10:25:23 +1000
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAH_y2NH2jrtDLKaXLze1fF-sj5aC-kaK4uxfPabxv-pma5ty2w@mail.gmail.com>
On 18 July 2014 10:12, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > On 17 July 2014 16:59, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote: > > So at least it looks like all the voices here can live with 100 > semantics. > > That's taking liberties. I think that Mark will make that sort of > assessment. And I note that the number of participants is pretty low. > by "here" I meant in this thread. I was just trying to focus in on what I saw as the remaining differences. > > I prefer keeping RFC723x semantic exactly. > > So you've said. Well no. I've previously said I see use-case for the 100 semantic, but not expressed a preference for a mechanism to transport it. I'm certainly not opposed to a new mechanism for the semantic, but I'm a bit cautious about using the flow control window as the mechanism. > But you keep talking about mechanisms rather than > semantics. It seems to me like you want a near-perfect facsimile of > the mechanism too. > No - I want the semantic. But I see two proposals have been made for a mechanism and I evaluated how they would affect my implementation. As I already have code that implements the existing RFCs for 100 support in h1, so it is simplest for me (and I expect a lot of others) to adapt that to 100 handling for h2. For jetty, most of the 100 handling is above the framing layer and I have to explicitly disable it for non HTTP transports such as SPDY, FCGI etc. The jetty mechanism inspects request headers and sends a non final response "frame" if the application signals it wants the body. A h2 mechanism similar to that, but that is incapable of carrying 1xx messages is fine by me. I just would like it at the same semantic level in the protocol. A mechanism that uses framing flags and adjusting the flow control algorithm to get similar but not exact semantics simply does not fit. I will end up implementing 2 similar but different 100 continues mechanism depending on the transport layer - ugh! regards -- 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.
Received on Friday, 18 July 2014 00:25:52 UTC