PMilanese@xxxxxxxx wrote:
You stated "I always thought it would make a lot more sense to transfer some or all images (and CSS and JS) within the same request as the containing HTML page."
Yes, and I still think so. You have mentioned situations where itwouldn't work; so use what we already have in those situations, but it doesn't follow that it's a miracle cure for all other situations.
I merely stated that this would be expensive on the server side,
No, you haven't (or you haven't provided any arguments to support this claim). You would not be transferring any more data than you already do. You would actually be transferring less because you have vastly less TCPconnections to establish and maintain. And in fact, in my experience it's usually establishing those hundreds of TCP connections that is slowing things down most.
This is why it is the way it is.
Hardly; you don't seriously think that dynamic content and server farms have been around before HTTP? ;-)
Anyhow. Off topic. Be a little more polite with your answers please.
Sorry. :/ ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. ********************************************************************** --------------------------------------------------------------------- The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|