Re: [hybi] Framing take IV [why fragment]

Scott Ferguson <ferg@caucho.com> Thu, 05 August 2010 15:26 UTC

Return-Path: <ferg@caucho.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39AD13A6978 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 08:26:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.24
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.24 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vTeExUZJKkj2 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 08:26:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp113.biz.mail.sp1.yahoo.com (smtp113.biz.mail.sp1.yahoo.com [69.147.92.226]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 54B583A685E for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 08:26:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 55562 invoked from network); 5 Aug 2010 15:26:46 -0000
Received: from [192.168.1.11] (ferg@66.92.8.203 with plain) by smtp113.biz.mail.sp1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 05 Aug 2010 08:26:46 -0700 PDT
X-Yahoo-SMTP: L1_TBRiswBB5.MuzAo8Yf89wczFo0A2C
X-YMail-OSG: PMt2GDAVM1kkg449WtfDsWeJ07oDJqACX.NZmrEAxyWXOlt JWl5i_JFeGEWaGUArwUW0EAR2IIPpsXisggPk0YBQB5FBvzXYyE4xTU1MN.w 0yEpw6vEEOeEguEXVgEGmmUa4KSBpNdFYM3HqyouOS2cB0JccUHDdgu9KZR3 .lKcdu3MsidqvkDhSI.43V6OFTQ67a_IMR2cHPhEB3y8IUK7gxsqcM0C7GNV d2oj9pUe90a6EMa7OSbkXT21J3lcApWNo6HZO165ioHUXuTcSF8VpfPAe5nE R6yN2vvWfwGEfMmwb_kDl
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
Message-ID: <4C5AD81F.8080800@caucho.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2010 08:26:23 -0700
From: Scott Ferguson <ferg@caucho.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100411)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
References: <AANLkTinyrDoG5d_Ur6HVRy=SgMPjLzJtpJ++Ye=1DQdj@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1008040050040.5947@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <1280932393.7561.271.camel@tng> <2286.1281017237.786534@puncture>
In-Reply-To: <2286.1281017237.786534@puncture>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Framing take IV [why fragment]
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi>
List-Post: <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2010 15:26:19 -0000

Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Wed Aug  4 15:33:13 2010, Patrick McManus wrote:
>
>> Benefits of streaming:
>>
>> * Reduced memory consumption on the sender in cases where the message is
>> being "passed through". A service that does a large database query is a
>> good example here - the results can be passed back as they are found
>> even before you know how many there are.
>>
>>
> No, because the receiver cnnot process portions of messages - at least 
> with our current API. And you can achieve this behaviour by sending 
> multiple messages anyway.

Of course it can. Browser writers are fully capable of buffering the 
frames until the message is complete and then giving the complete string 
to the application.

The browser developers never complained about the sentinel framing and 
it has the exact same buffering requirement.

-- Scott