- From: Brendan Long <self@brendanlong.com>
- Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 10:34:14 -0500
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I don't think the semantics I want are the same. RFC 7240's "wait" indicates how long a client is willing to wait for a server to finish processing, but what I'm looking for is a way to tell the server that we want it to wait, even though it could respond now. Maybe the "Wait-Until: available" or "Wait-Until: etags-change" variant makes this more clear? I don't think millisecond granularity of the timeout is particularly important. I picked milliseconds because they're a common unit, but seconds would be fine too. The main advantage of setting a timeout in the header is that it makes altering clients to support this easier (since they'll eventually get a valid response instead of a connection error). On 03/27/2015 08:46 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > 2015-03-27 17:13 GMT-05:00 Brendan Long <self@brendanlong.com>: >> hTmftQ6t4pJNuAjYvl8l49hAE7QYpyVi0/bvxnbU27QG9agVq4g53cWouIU+9uKF >> H39lF0vJJ8J3DQCXzgRirdaLoXZ+ZJZ0Jtu90FYE38afR763pPEVN02N6w7dgm+k >> SI7bSJeep2dG7LzffTg+qzzpJeYJO2KnezE6YOIcDvoHxd80qJCb8zhqQkfSw0AR >> OCVIgTG2x7f0i58Ls+/mcGSDnLWg1nZ8PACvuMte7V9B66fWvN9CCM8awcfdZ6w5 > I believe that what you want is accomplished by RFC 7240: > > Prefer: wait=5 > > The units are perhaps suboptimal for your use case (seconds instead of > milliseconds), but we might be able to make a change to support finer > grained timing.
Received on Sunday, 29 March 2015 15:34:38 UTC