4 ms·
RFC 7540 also defines an optional way for the client to signal whether it wishes the request to be processed asynchronously: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7240
by vfaronov 8y ago
RFC 7540 also defines an optional way for the client to signal whether it wishes the request to be processed asynchronously: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7240#section-4.1 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7240#section-4.1
- geezerjay 8y agoMy first impression is that RFC7540 isn't appropriate for this use case, because it is proposed as a way for the client to signal optional/prefered behavior when said behavior is already made mandatory by the server. To put it differently, why would it matter if a client POSTs with Prefer: respond-async if the server response will always be async? Whether that header is present or not, the HTTP response is already designed to always return a Location header.