Re: Worries about content-length

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Patrick R. Michaud: "Re: Worries about content-length"
• Previous message: James Gosling: "Re: Worries about content-length"
• In reply to: Ned Freed: "Re: Worries about content-length"
• Next in thread: Alex Hopmann: "Re: Worries about content-length"

    Actually, I see it the other way around, with byte stuffing being
    the hack and unique boundaries as the cleanest way to do it. I also
    disagree about it being simpler -- byte stuffing requires that you
    diddle the stream as it is sent, which complicates your inner
    processing loop where you spend your time.  Boundaries keep that
    loop nice and simple.

I agree.  Consider what happens as the size of the user population
scales.  So you have 100 million users, all with mostly-idle Pentiums
on their desks, beating on your server (probably a multiprocessor
Alpha :-) ).

So, do you want that server to be byte-stuffing all the data streams?
Or would you rather leave the burden to the clients?  I know what
I would want to do.

-Jeff

• Next message: Patrick R. Michaud: "Re: Worries about content-length"
• Previous message: James Gosling: "Re: Worries about content-length"
• In reply to: Ned Freed: "Re: Worries about content-length"
• Next in thread: Alex Hopmann: "Re: Worries about content-length"