[8891] in www-talk@info.cern.ch
Re: Non-persistent Cookie proposal
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Koen Holtman)
Sat Aug 12 09:25:17 1995
From: koen@win.tue.nl (Koen Holtman)
To: jag@scndprsn.eng.sun.com (James Gosling)
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 1995 15:23:44 +0200 (MET DST)
Cc: www-talk@www10.w3.org, koen@win.tue.nl (Koen Holtman)
In-Reply-To: <9508120154.AA02893@norquay.Eng.Sun.COM> from "James Gosling" at Aug 11, 95 06:54:16 pm
Resent-From: www-talk@w3.org
James Gosling:
>One of the most important axis for evaluation of *any* protocol is how
>it scales. All of the stateful dialog proposals that I've seen on this
>list score very low on this.
Both my proposal and (I believe) the one by Dave Kristol intend to
provide *some* minimal support for stateful dialogs as soon as
possible, not to be the ultimate stateful dialog solution.
> When the web gets truly large, cache hit
>rates have to be *very* high.
Imminent death of the net predicted.
I don't know if cache hut rates will *have* to be very high, or even
if they will be. I can imagine a large (but not necessarily fast)
web, even without any caching.
While I agree that a stateful dialog implemented with client-side Java
scripts will generally consume less bandwidth, I don't think that Java
browsers will be generally available, and, more importantly, generally
used by more than, say, 90% of web users for some years to come.
The currently discussed proposals intend to provide support for
stateful dialogs as soon as possible, say within half a year.
Koen.
