Re: [Chicken-users] Re: https

[Daishi Kato]

At Mon, 10 Apr 2006 16:26:11 +0000 (GMT),
Thomas Chust wrote:
> > - I wonder if (ensure-local-connections) is a good way;
> >  since threads are chaper than connections, shouldn't we
> >  reuse connection among threads?
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I do think it is a good idea. If you don't do it this way, you have to 
> apply extensive mutex locking, which will likely kill any speed advantage 
> of the connection pooling should you really make heavy use of http 
> transfers in multiple threads. If you use neither seperate pools nor 
> locking, you will end up with multiple threads writing their requests to 
> the connection at the same time, resulting in a complete mess.

Oh, that was my misunderstanding about (make-parameter) being thread-local.

> > - My rough test shows some delay with keep-alive connections;
> >  somehow (read-string) is slow with the length specified.
> >  What's the problem?
> > - In order to support persistent connection, the support of
> >  Transfer-Encoding: chunked
> >  would be required;
> >  but I didn't come up with a nice implementation idea for http:GET.
> >  Any comments?
> 
> Currently I can't think of anything helpful on these two points.

Well, I will try more on the first one.
For the second one, comments would be nice from anyone on the list
who are interested in HTTP/1.1.

Thanks,
Daishi