Re: A few semantic points for HTTP/1.0 draft

Lou Montulli (montulli@strumpet.mcom.com)
Tue, 29 Nov 1994 23:53:35 +0100

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: David Koblas: "Re: Comments in media"
Previous message: John Franks: "Server software with a different design"
Maybe in reply to: Chuck Shotton: "A few semantic points for HTTP/1.0 draft"
Next in thread: Bob Denny: "Re: A few semantic points for HTTP/1.0 draft"

On Nov 29, 3:34pm, hallam@axal04.cern.ch wrote:
> Subject: RE: A few semantic points for HTTP/1.0 draft
> >Current client support for 503 is minimal. As an example, NetScape's
> >response to a 503 error is to begin repeatedly resending the client's
> >request until it is satisfied or the client times out. If the server is
> >moderately busy, the client may be quickly serviced without impacting
> >performance from the user's or server's perspective. If the server is
> >heavily overloaded, a rapid, repeated resubmission of the request will only
> >make the problem worse.
>

I was told that 503 meant server busy and that the client should continue
to retry after a slight delay until it could get through. Maybe I was
mis-informed? For now I will remove the retry behavior so that Netscape
fails gracefully when a 503 is encountered and not retry again. Whenever
someone finally figures out what to do in the 503 case I'll reimplement
the new solution.

-- 
Lou Montulli                 http://www.mcom.com/people/montulli/
       Netscape Communications Corp.

Next message: David Koblas: "Re: Comments in media"
Previous message: John Franks: "Server software with a different design"
Maybe in reply to: Chuck Shotton: "A few semantic points for HTTP/1.0 draft"
Next in thread: Bob Denny: "Re: A few semantic points for HTTP/1.0 draft"