--- On Sat, 9/1/10, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> wrote:

> From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [BOSH] Pipelining / avoiding use of 2x HTTP-sockets
> To: "Bidirectional Streams Over Synchronous HTTP" <[email protected]>
> Date: Saturday, 9 January, 2010, 1:50 AM
> On 12/30/09 8:47 AM, Mridul
> Muralidharan wrote:
> > 
> > Ian should really write up some document describing
> the way 124 is
> > supposed to work, I have seen it confusing quite a lot
> of people.
> 
> Ian disappeared quite a while ago.


Ah ! Was not aware of that.


> 
> > 124 requires that when client wants to send a request,
> it should be
> > able to as soon as possible : since the previous
> request from client
> > would typically be blocked at CM if there is no
> response to be
> > returned.
> 
> Correct.
> 
> > This means that : a) Client uses 'another' connection
> to talk to CM. 
> > In this case, CM will immediately respond back on the
> previous
> > connection and 'block' on the new connection (for
> returning responses
> > with minimum delay when server needs to send async
> messages back). 
> 
> Yes, that is the pattern we assume.
> 
> > b)
> > If client uses same socket (for whatever reason :
> pipelining POST's
> > is really weird behavior IIRC), then CM should detect
> availability of
> > a new request from client and send a response back for
> the previous
> > request.
> > 
> > (b) is not required since most, if not all, impl's do
> not pipeline
> > post requests.
> 
> Mridul, I agree with your later message that pipelining
> POSTs should be
> strongly discouraged, as it already is in RFC 2616. Do we
> need some text
> about that in XEP-0124?


I always assumed that was implicit, but it is not obvious when starting out I 
guess. Considering the confusion it raised, I think you are right - we might 
want to discourage it strongly : with references to http rfc for the "why".


Regards,
Mridul


> 
> Peter
> 
> -- 
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://stpeter.im/
> 
> 
> 
> 


      The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage. 
http://in.yahoo.com/

Reply via email to