Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-abdera-user-archive@locus.apache.org Received: (qmail 36500 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2008 02:06:30 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 5 Feb 2008 02:06:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 55406 invoked by uid 500); 5 Feb 2008 02:06:22 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-abdera-user-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 55382 invoked by uid 500); 5 Feb 2008 02:06:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact abdera-user-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: abdera-user@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list abdera-user@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 55373 invoked by uid 99); 5 Feb 2008 02:06:22 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 04 Feb 2008 18:06:22 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [63.246.7.16] (HELO mail.mulesource.com) (63.246.7.16) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Feb 2008 02:06:04 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.mulesource.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FD5828310D9 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 20:05:57 -0600 (CST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at X-Spam-Score: -0.333 X-Spam-Level: Received: from mail.mulesource.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.mulesource.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iXu4FyiA-Nf4 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 20:05:55 -0600 (CST) Received: from [192.168.0.4] (adsl-75-41-18-215.dsl.klmzmi.sbcglobal.net [75.41.18.215]) by mail.mulesource.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C63D28310D5 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 20:05:55 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <47A7C482.2030309@mulesource.com> Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:05:54 -0500 From: Dan Diephouse User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: abdera-user@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Batching References: <12CFD17B66F64A0793731BB4FFAB499C@ArrovaL001> In-Reply-To: <12CFD17B66F64A0793731BB4FFAB499C@ArrovaL001> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Old-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.333 tagged_above=-10 required=6.6 tests=[AWL=0.220, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=2.046] What about HTTP pipelining? Granted there is the idempotency issue: """Clients SHOULD NOT pipeline requests using non-idempotent methods or non-idempotent sequences of methods (see section 9.1.2). Otherwise, a premature termination of the transport connection could lead to indeterminate results. A client wishing to send a non-idempotent request SHOULD wait to send that request until it has received the response status for the previous request.""" However I feel that there is some flexibility here if you can architect your non-idempotent stuff in such a way that you can get consistent results if a POST fails. Do you have a link to the post by James? - Dan Remy Gendron wrote: > Hello all, > > > > Has there been any progress on how batching should be implemented? > > > > There was that good post by James discussing the Google approach vs using > plain HTML/REST constructs to achieve this goal. > > > > I will soon have to implement batch updates. Either APP is extended to > support batching or I will have to create specific REST services for these > tasks. > > > > Speaking of REST services, I will ask for best practices in another post. > > > > R�my > > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.19/1258 - Release Date: 2008.02.04 > 10:10 > > > -- Dan Diephouse MuleSource http://mulesource.com | http://netzooid.com/blog