I have a question about these headers... will they impact the ability to do many, but small, rpcs? Imagine you'd need to support 5,000 to 50,000 rpcs/second. Would this help or hinder?
On Oct 5, 2009 4:44 PM, "Eric Sammer" <e...@lifeless.net> wrote: Doug Cutting wrote: > More or less. Except we can probably arrange to omit most of those > response... Content-Type and Server are probably unavoidable. Some of the others are extremely helpful during development / debugging / etc. It depends on how "open" you are about HTTP being the transport (i.e. do you let developers augment these headers to support additional features, etc.). This may not make sense in the context of something specialized like Avro transport. > I today implemented a simple HTTP-based transport for Avro: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira... Just out of curiousity, were you using HTTP keep alive? During testing on a project a few years ago, I found a huge difference if Keep Alive is supported. In retrospect, that should have been obvious. I'd imagine the usage pattern here would be a large number of repeated calls between the same client / server within a short period of time; perfect for KA. Regards. -- Eric Sammer e...@lifless.net http://esammer.blogspot.com
