Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 02:39:18 -0700 From: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> To: "Wilkinson, Alex" <alex.wilkinson@dsto.defence.gov.au> Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Adding portsnap to the base system Message-ID: <430305C6.2060407@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20050817084518.GG25467@squash.dsto.defence.gov.au> References: <42F62C5F.6000609@freebsd.org> <20050807.101746.68985623.imp@bsdimp.com> <42F636BE.3020906@freebsd.org> <8664ub4bp3.fsf@xps.des.no> <42FCA675.7090300@freebsd.org> <20050817084518.GG25467@squash.dsto.defence.gov.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Wilkinson, Alex wrote: > 0n Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 06:39:01AM -0700, Colin Percival wrote: > >I can see that it would be very easy to implement _persistent_ HTTP, > >but implementing _pipelined_ HTTP is quite a different matter... > > erm ... what is meant by "_pipelined_ HTTP" ? I use the word in the sense that it is used in section 8.1.2.2 of RFC 2616: A client that supports persistent connections MAY "pipeline" its requests (i.e., send multiple requests without waiting for each response). Colin Percival
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?430305C6.2060407>