3 ms·
It's certainly true that real websites use many different hostnames, but keep in mind that one of the reasons why (apart from ad networks and such) is to help p
by BrandonY 11y ago
It's certainly true that real websites use many different hostnames, but keep in mind that one of the reasons why (apart from ad networks and such) is to help pages load faster over HTTP/1.1. If that factor were removed, it'd remove the need to put together a fleet of static content servers with numbered hostnames.
- ldng 11y agoExcept, in real life, you're also loading stuff like social buttons (facebook, twitter, google plus and so on) and tracking^W marketing probes from third parties. So, to me, HTTP2 is not that interesting.
- dc_gregory 11y agoRealistically, how many sites load those assets synchronously and how many sites need them loaded to provide the main functionality? Its a stretch to write off http/2 just for that!
- ldng 11y agoI did not write off HTTP2, I just said that it is not has interesting as marketed. It's great for some usecase like tiled maps for instance. Not worth the trouble for other usecase. That's all. Akamaï already demonstrated so, not long ago.
- dc_gregory 11y agoI feel like it simplifies workflow, site design etc; serving your content from several domains is a hack and a half. I can see your point for non-greenfield dev, can't say there is a large amount of motivation to switch it out (aside from new toys!!!).
- nl 11y ago>> where HTTP/1.1 can load at most 2-6 in parallel > So, to me, HTTP2 is not that interesting If you have more than 2-6 of your own resources (scripts, CSS, images) on a page it should be. Third party resources is orthogonal to that.