transfer-encoding | 易学教程

HTTP POST using XHR with Chunked Transfer Encoding

阅读更多关于 HTTP POST using XHR with Chunked Transfer Encoding

I have a REST API that accepts an Audio file via an HTTP Post. The API has support for Transfer-Encoding: chunked request header so that the file can be uploaded in pieces as it is being created from a recorder running on the client. This way the server can start processing the file as it arrives for improved performance. For example: HTTP 1.1 POST .../v1/processAudio Transfer-Encoding: chunked [Chunk 1 256 Bytes] (server starts processing when arrives) [Chunk 2 256 Bytes] [Chunk 3 256 Bytes] ... The audio files are typically short and are around 10K to 100K in size. I have C# and Java code

HTTP POST using XHR with Chunked Transfer Encoding

阅读更多关于 HTTP POST using XHR with Chunked Transfer Encoding

问题 I have a REST API that accepts an Audio file via an HTTP Post. The API has support for Transfer-Encoding: chunked request header so that the file can be uploaded in pieces as it is being created from a recorder running on the client. This way the server can start processing the file as it arrives for improved performance. For example: HTTP 1.1 POST .../v1/processAudio Transfer-Encoding: chunked [Chunk 1 256 Bytes] (server starts processing when arrives) [Chunk 2 256 Bytes] [Chunk 3 256 Bytes]

Transfer-Encoding: gzip vs. Content-Encoding: gzip

阅读更多关于 Transfer-Encoding: gzip vs. Content-Encoding: gzip

What is the current state of affairs when it comes to whether to do Transfer-Encoding: gzip or a Content-Encoding: gzip when I want to allow clients with e.g. limited bandwidth to signal their willingness to accept a compressed response and the server have the final say whether or not to compress . The latter is what e.g. Apache's mod_deflate and IIS do, if you let it take care of compression. Depending on the size of the content to be compressed, it will do the additional Transfer-Encoding: chunked . It will also include a Vary: Accept-Encoding , which already hints at the problem. Content

Streaming Http responses with NodeJS

阅读更多关于 Streaming Http responses with NodeJS

I am experimenting with various responses from a simple NodeJS HTTP server. The effect I am trying to achieve is faster visual rendering of a web page. Since the response is streamed to the browser with transfer-encoding: chunked (right?) I was thinking I could render the page layout first and the rest of the data after a delay. var http = require('http'); http.createServer(function (req, res) { res.writeHead(200, { 'Content-Type': 'text/html' , 'Transfer-Encoding': 'chunked' }); res.write('<html>\n'); res.write('<body>\n'); res.write('hello '); res.write('</body>\n'); res.write('</html>\n');

How can I set Transfer-Encoding to chunked, explicitly or implicitly, in an ASP.NET response?

阅读更多关于 How can I set Transfer-Encoding to chunked, explicitly or implicitly, in an ASP.NET response?

问题 Can I simply set the Transfer-Encoding header? Will calling Response.Flush() at some point cause this to occur implicitly? EDIT No, I Cannot call Response.Headers.Add("Transfer-Encoding","anything"); That throws. any other suggestions? Related: Enable Chunked Transfer Encoding in ASP.NET 回答1: TL;DR: Specifying the content-length is the best way to achieve a fast first byte; you'll allow chunking at TCP rather than HTTP level. If you don't know the content-length, setting context.Response

Transfer-Encoding: gzip vs. Content-Encoding: gzip

阅读更多关于 Transfer-Encoding: gzip vs. Content-Encoding: gzip

问题 What is the current state of affairs when it comes to whether to do Transfer-Encoding: gzip or a Content-Encoding: gzip when I want to allow clients with e.g. limited bandwidth to signal their willingness to accept a compressed response and the server have the final say whether or not to compress . The latter is what e.g. Apache's mod_deflate and IIS do, if you let it take care of compression. Depending on the size of the content to be compressed, it will do the additional Transfer-Encoding: