- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 15:58:13 -0400
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>
- CC: www-ws@w3.org
Mark Nottingham wrote: > It's not so much that as the decoupling of the request and response. > In other words, if they make a request, keep the persistent > connection open, and then send responses upon events, the 1->n > request/response relationship will confuse proxies. Confuse them any more than any other use of persistent connections? > Of course, this > won't be the case if they keep a 1-1 relationship (perhaps by doing > request...response,request...response,request...). They support that mode as well, though as a special case of a notification replay feature. There's pros and cons of both approaches, but at least they provide a choice. > However, using persistent connections in this manner isn't too > friendly to proxies; it consumes resources on them, and many will > close idle connections after a fairly short timeout. When this > happens, it becomes inefficient to use the HTTP, as you have to > continually re-establish the connection. True, but I believe that's "just" another consideration when deciding which approach to use. If neither is suitable for you, I suppose the next step would be to look at something other than HTTP. That has its costs too. MB
Received on Monday, 9 July 2001 15:58:14 UTC