[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] RFC: arch protocol, smart server, and tla implement

From: Andrew Suffield
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] RFC: arch protocol, smart server, and tla implementation prototypes
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 02:34:35 +0000
User-agent: Mutt/

On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 12:50:44PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-01-30 at 11:14, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > This is easy; most command-response protocols like http and this one
> > are simple to pipeline.
> Cough. HTTP pipelining does not work at all well in practice. 'simple'
> and 'works' are not necessarily related.
> > This would do well enough:
> > 
> > Commands may be pipelined, in that multiple commands can be
> > transmitted before the responses to any have been received. The server
> > will respond to every command independently; if any command fails,
> > subsequent commands will be processed regardless.
> This assumes that a failed command will not wedge anything. It doesn't
> simplify the client at all (because a bad failure can tear down the
> server connection - so you still need to track all the sent but not
> replied to commands). It also assumes that meangingful requests can be
> generated without the results from the prior. I think that as Tom has
> suggested, higer level protocol commands are of more use to us.

That logic is precisely why http pipelining doesn't work in practice.

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' : |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]