19652Re: [rest-discuss] Reactive REST
- May 19, 2014On Sunday 18 May 2014 23:55:29 Hubert A Le Van Gong wrote:
> I don't quite follow why you think a permanent HTTP session is againstPersistent HTTPS connections as well as keep-alive persistent HTTP
> RESTful principles. Isn't the HTTP session management at a different
> level (transport) than the actual resource management and the
> stateless principles associated to it? In the same vein, would you
> also consider one cannot define a RESTful service over persistent
> HTTPS connections for instance?
connections make for an interesting case. I do consider them as a kind
of session state, although arguably not state of the application
session, but rather session state in the transport layer. The
justification, as far as I understand it, is that in this case being
stateful is actually more efficient/scalable than being stateless,
because establishing a new connection is more expensive than keeping an
existing connection open for a short time, in case it can be reused by a
And the keep-alive time indeed is short. For HTTP (not sure about HTTPS)
it is much less than 60s.
The case of a persistent connection for receiving events from the server
is different. Such a connection can't time out after a short time, is
has to stay open while the client is running.
Anyway, it is surely possible to say that REST is only concerned with
the application layer and that session state at lower levels is none of
For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_persistent_connection
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>