Re: [hybi] Framing take IV

Scott Ferguson <ferg@caucho.com> Wed, 04 August 2010 01:39 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 7E0DE3A69FE for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 18:39:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.569
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 q-dTpu-193iP for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 18:39:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp115.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com (smtp115.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com [209.191.68.75]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 75E4F3A69A2 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 18:39:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 75882 invoked from network); 4 Aug 2010 01:39:26 -0000
Received: from [192.168.1.11] (ferg@66.92.8.203 with plain) by smtp115.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 03 Aug 2010 18:39:26 -0700 PDT
X-Yahoo-SMTP: L1_TBRiswBB5.MuzAo8Yf89wczFo0A2C
X-YMail-OSG: LydmxzcVM1mn8_2oPE7tzzc7qbZpRfLNuk.Y.30pN9Rby.U gQacQ2kGsYJNAMEO0iTLTLiDsMjjtTYgf5rM63k4D03riSb.boPeBIbgXwA. YNgPj2u2YHjfmSvbNnUcRne0pF2CPDozcoI5in7EayofWrKdU0v8pO7e9E84 HirXVALlc.QvFyG.Z2K_5ogRgIDEL5e8Qvc6ypnevzIrpKDe2q2GzgoU4Xls ti9dg2LCDhQThUh05OId0CKfxH0qKOC0onb1Uy3cNLwlg14QQvtkQ2aqmjs5 QjTxFgtSSaSBaJuEuNOT8
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
Message-ID: <4C58C4C8.5020900@caucho.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 18:39:20 -0700
From: Scott Ferguson <ferg@caucho.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100411)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
References: <AANLkTinyrDoG5d_Ur6HVRy=SgMPjLzJtpJ++Ye=1DQdj@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1008040050040.5947@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <28A6543A-5CA6-42B7-8D2E-F5511EE20008@apple.com> <4C58C2F6.8050608@caucho.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1008040132190.5947@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1008040132190.5947@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] Framing take IV
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: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 01:39:03 -0000

Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Aug 2010, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>   
>>> I agree. I can't see any benefit to fragmentation over a variable-size 
>>> length field for an initial version without multiplexing. If the 
>>> variable-size length field is well-designed, then in the common case 
>>> where the message size is small it will only cost one extra branch to 
>>> read the length. In the rare case where the message size is large, a 
>>> variable-size length is easier to deal with than reassembling 
>>> fragments, and easier on the sending side too.
>>>       
>> Some of us don't have infinite memory when sending messages.
>>     
>
> Why do you need infinite memory?
>   

Because we don't know the length of dynamically produced content until 
the dynamic process is complete. That's why HTTP added chunking.

-- Scott