W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > February 2008

Re: Extra Connection Support Proposal

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:46:30 -0800
Message-ID: <47C5DA36.1060902@sicking.cc>
To: Kris Zyp <kris@sitepen.com>
CC: Stewart Brodie <stewart.brodie@antplc.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Kris Zyp <kzyp@sitepen.com>, "Web API WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>

Kris Zyp wrote:
>>> you click on a link, does the link get followed?  That is the same 
>>> sort of
>>> scenario, isn't it?
>> At least firefox will abort any existing downloads for the current 
>> page when the user clicks a link. But if you're downloading these 
>> images in another tab you might have this problem yeah. Though if it's 
>> simply multiple images the new page will likely get squeezed in 
>> between two of the image downloads.
> And there is an important distinction between images being downloaded 
> that consume connections and a long-lived response that consume a 
> connection. With normal responses, two connection usually provides a 
> means for relatively continuous utilization of resources. Most of the 
> time two connections provide enough requests that the usually the server 
> is processing a request, or a response is downloading. Either way, 
> something is being done, and it is quite reasonable for further requests 
> to be queued, since the server/connection is working to finish the 
> response as fast as possible within it's capability. On the otherhand, 
> when a long-lived response is paused indefinitely until a the server has 
> a message to be sent, there is nothing being done. Nothing is being 
> downloaded, and the server isn't working on anything, and requests can 
> be queued indefinitely even though nothing is happening.

Yup, it seems like people agree with this. It's just the proposal to put 
it as a feature on XHR that seems to be disliked by a few people, me 

Doing this on an HTTP level seems like the right solution to me. Though 
i'm not sure what working group would then be appropriate for 
standardizing it...

/ Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2008 21:46:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:09:59 UTC