Re: Statelessness

• Mail folder: WWW Talk Apr 94-present
• Next message: Jon P. Knight: "Re: Statelessness"
• Previous message: John Ellson: "Re: Extension to HTTP V1.x (was HTTP RFC)"
• Maybe in reply to: Jared_Rhine@hmc.edu: "Statelessness"
• Reply: Jon P. Knight: "Re: Statelessness"

Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 06:20:31 +0200
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Message-id: <9405170416.AA03001@mobius.geom.umn.edu>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: burchard@geom.umn.edu
Originator: www-talk@info.cern.ch
Sender: www-talk@www0.cern.ch
Precedence: bulk
From: burchard@geom.umn.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
Subject: Re: Statelessness
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas

One advantage of server statelessness is that it allows backtracking  
in the browser to work correctly for interactive pages.  Storing all  
state in the client (through hidden fields) effectively gives the  
user complete undo capability.  This can make statelessness very  
useful despite the setup lag incurred at the server.

HTTP definitely has room to improve as a distributed application  
protocol (in terms of latency, load balancing, etc).  But this needs  
to be thought through very carefully before the stateless model is  
abandoned.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Burchard   <burchard@geom.umn.edu>
``I'm still learning how to count backwards from infinity...''
--------------------------------------------------------------------