Re: HTTP problem or Mosaic problem?

Bob Denny (
Thu, 16 Jun 94 11:27:06 PDT

On Thu, 16 Jun 1994 19:57:13 +0200 Paul Everitt wrote:
> [...]
>However, I want to see if I understand [my] proposal: will subsequent
>messages to the cgi-bin "object" go through the httpd? This would allow
>a good deal of piggy-backing on the HTTP work, primarily in security.

Well, the idea is a gleam in my eye at present. All I wanted to point out is
that, in my opinion, HTTP is NOT the place to keep state. I think it should be
kept at a higher level. I agree that HTTP seems to be a good vehicle for
providing the "request-response" service to whatever the higher-level service

If you take HTML out of the picture, HTTP is a useful, flexible service that can
be used for lots of things. Once state gets into the picture, many of HTTP's
potential uses disappear. You could argue that new uses appear, but then you
could argue that making FTP stateless would make it useful in new ways as well.

If you look at what's sitting there in the CGI interface, particularly the
"extra header" support in CGI/1.1, it leaves open the possibilities of layering
all sorts of stuff on top of HTTP, which would be used to provide a
"request-response" service to the application layer.

-- Bob