W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2015

Re: FF Priority experiment

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 09:02:45 -0800
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXzFd5M1G7D6EOCdVg3SV-czAXhz8_yfOghkPoHjMRsbA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 8 January 2015 at 08:43, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote:
> it can expect to have approximately 5 streams created to be held for the
> entire life span of the connection, simply to define it's own absolute
> priorities.

Why not hold two structures?  Separating active streams and stream
priorities seems fairly easy to do.  Active streams are strictly
bounded, whereas stream priorities need garbage collection and all
that mess.

And I don't think that anyone is going to expect a server to hold
responses.  The point of priority is to manage the case where all
those responses don't fit into the pipe.  That said, part of the point
of prioritization is to allow the server to take more responsibility
for performance at the client end.  If you want to do that, then at
least you have some information.

(Point taken about the complexity, btw.)
Received on Thursday, 8 January 2015 17:03:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:42 UTC