- From: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 00:08:08 -0500 (EST)
- To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- cc: "xml-dist-app@w3.org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
> I would say that if closing the connection (wow, I originally typed that > as if close thing connection..) without waiting for a response is > invalid HTTP, THEN that means that HTTP can't do Fire and Forget AND > that an application that would be built on Fire and Forget couldn't be > deployed on HTTP. I'm not so sure. Why can't you do HTTP/FaF by saying that the HTTP server response is consumed (per the HTTP protocol spec) but ignored? > I'm strongly against standardizing any MEP that can't be deployed on > HTTP. That would be very very strange to standardize an MEP and not > standardize any bindings for that MEP. It doesn't pass the giggle test > at all.. > > Another interesting related question: If it's illegal to close without > reading the return HTTP response, does that mean that an HTTP > intermediary MUST wait for the next node's response to faithfully pass > back? It depends on what type of intermediary it is. See sec 1.4 of RFC 2616. /r$ -- SOA Appliance Group IBM Application Integration Middleware * This address is going away; please use rsalz@us.ibm.com *
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2006 05:08:17 UTC