Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Monday 10 June 2002 8:38 pm, Aaron Skonnard wrote:
> Ok, ok, I take it back. HTTP is probably trivial to implement (having
> not implemented it fully myself). I brought it into the discussion
> because it's something we all use yet I'm sure we could still find a
> group of developers that thinks it technically [expletive deleted] for whatever
> reason.
As is my destiny on XML-DEV, I will now point out that HTTP [expletive deleted]. It's based
on TCP, and until recently (and even then not with the trivial
implementations people throw together) set up an entire TCP connection to
then send a single request packet and get a single response packet. Even when
used in 'persistent mode' it then introduces a framing system that carefully
emulates the underlying packet-based nature of the network which TCP does a
lot of work to carefully hide away.
HTTP has a lot of confusing options that nobody seems to implement. Just look
at the list of error codes for a quick run-down of them.
It seemed to be at its best around 1.0, before they put in all that
"Connection:" stuff to try and make up for the misuse of TCP.
Check this baby out:
http://research.sun.com/techrep/1999/abstract-71.html
"Hybrid TCP-UDP Transport for Web Traffic"
ABS
--
Alaric B. Snell
http://www.alaric-snell.com/ http://RFC.net/ http://www.warhead.org.uk/
Any sufficiently advanced technology can be emulated in software
|
