I suppose another possibility would be to chunk up the intent information into a size that is known to be good with most webservers and then only send a certain amount of the intent header with each request. This, of course, would require that you have enough requests to spread the header across. However, it might be reasonable to assume that requests with only a few transactions have a small amount of intent information.
I would still see if you can get Stephen to outline what information he envisions this feature providing. It may help you make additional simplifying assumptions. Alternatively, what you've learned by investigating this so far may have an impact upon what's desired. If it's only possible to provide 3 of the 4 piecies of information needed, it would be good to know which are most important. -j On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 06:16:19PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I honestly don't know enough about this problem to give you a more > > sensible answer. Adding a second HTTP operation into the mix is asking > > for performance problems. I wandered the halls before sending out this > > e-mail. As far as I can tell, only Stephen knows what Stephen wants for > > client intent. We should make him write this down, and then go from > > there. > > > > My understanding from previous discussions was that we wanted/needed > > something lightweight and easily attached to the HTTP request. IIRC, we > > had discussed using HTTP headers, modifying the URL, and other related > > trickery. I'm not trying to unilaterally shoot down your proposal, but > > it seems like it might be worth considering alternate approaches, or > > keeping header information to just the bare minimum. Without > > understanding the requirements for this feature, it's hard for me to > > provide you with more insightful advice -- sorry :(. > > I may just stick with the header approach for now, and if it causes > problems, switch gears. > > I've spent quite a bit of time reading through various RFC and specs and > can't find anything that documents a given limit on header size. > > It doesn't look like Apache has any problem with it, but IIS and various > other web servers appear to choke on large headers. > > -- > Shawn Walker > _______________________________________________ > pkg-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
