> While the concerns is valid, flow control looks like overkill to something where a per-channel pause control frame could do the same job with less implementation and protocol overhead.
Coming from messaging world I can say: nope. "Pause" frames are a very, very bad idea and lead to more problems than they solve. Windowing is much better engineering choice.
> Also note that TCP provides the URG channel for exception messaging.
Which doesn't work.
> 2.6. Push ... The client has the option to read and discard this information, but that may be a costly waste of bandwidth.
It's worth noting that caching and Push don't play together.
All your assertions are unsubstantiated. I'm not saying they're wrong, I'm just pointing out that you haven't explained any of your claims. You needn't go to any great length to cite sources, but a sentence or two of facts or explanation to match each assertion would make your post more useful to read.
Coming from messaging world I can say: nope. "Pause" frames are a very, very bad idea and lead to more problems than they solve. Windowing is much better engineering choice.
> Also note that TCP provides the URG channel for exception messaging.
Which doesn't work.
> 2.6. Push ... The client has the option to read and discard this information, but that may be a costly waste of bandwidth.
It's worth noting that caching and Push don't play together.