Re: Is a faithful HTTP/2 response scheduler necessarily O(n) in the worst case?

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Kazu Yamamoto <> wrote:

> Hi Tom,
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Thanks. IIUC, the algorithms described in both links are still at least
> > O(depth), which can be O(n) for dependency trees generated by certain
> > clients such as Chrome.
> Yes. Your understanding is correct.
> If a browser creates a list-like tree, I think it is misuse of priority.
> And servers should limit the depth of trees.

Why is that a misuse of priority? It seems entirely reasonable for a client
to specify a mostly-linear order. There is a very good reason for this:
inside HTML pages, CSS links and synchronous scripts must be evaluated in
the order they appear in the HTML file. This implies that the server should
send those resources in a linear order. This is exactly the rationale
behind Chrome using mostly-linear orders. (This is not to say that
mostly-linear orders are not occasionally problematic -- they are
<> -- but
there are good reasons to linear orders at least some of the time.)

(sorry for the duplicate message, replied from the wrong address)

Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2017 23:10:22 UTC