Re: pipelining vs. deferred content
Ben Laurie (ben@gonzo.ben.algroup.co.uk)
Thu, 27 Mar 1997 23:06:30 +0000 (GMT)
Jeffrey Mogul wrote:
>
> Regarding the issue of how one might defer the retrieval of
> an inlined image that will require a long time to generate
> (at the server), Ben Laurie <ben@gonzo.ben.algroup.co.uk> writes:
>
> Isn't this problem effectively solved by multiplexing, which is on
> the agenda for HTTP-NG?
>
> I agree that we are unlikely to solve it before DS time! I also
> shudder to think of how we'd have to restructure Apache to handle
> it.
>
> We are planning changes to Apache to be able to do this kind of
> thing in V2.0, ETA sometime next century at the current rate of
> progress.
>
> Given the time already spent on HTTP/1.1, I would also not
> want to count on deployment of HTTP-NG before the next century :-).
>
> But this is not really the same as multiplexing, because it's not
> an attempt to reorder requests and responses, or to interleave
> chunks of different messages. Multiplexing would solve this problem,
> but you don't need anything like the full complexity of multiplexing.
True. And multiplexing was causing my shudders, not your proposed solution.
[snip admirably clear discussion of how to do it without touching the server]
> Unfortunately, if the client doesn't understand "Retry-After",
> then it will simply treat the first 503 response as an unrecoverable
> error, and will never retry the request. So I don't think this
> exact approach will work in real life, at least not until the
> current population of browsers is replaced.
Also true. How about using a refresh? Or is that pure Netscapism?
Cheers,
Ben.
--
Ben Laurie Phone: +44 (181) 994 6435 Email: ben@algroup.co.uk
Freelance Consultant and Fax: +44 (181) 994 6472
Technical Director URL: http://www.algroup.co.uk/Apache-SSL
A.L. Digital Ltd, Apache Group member (http://www.apache.org)
London, England. Apache-SSL author