5 ms·
It seems odd to pin the blame on HTTP/2, no? Nobody made the intentional decision to lean on the browser's artificial connection limit. It sounds like nobody al
by bastawhiz 8y ago
It seems odd to pin the blame on HTTP/2, no? Nobody made the intentional decision to lean on the browser's artificial connection limit. It sounds like nobody also made the intentional decision to make lots of XHRs on page load, or configure the load balancer to work the way that it's working, etc. Had you been using HTTP/2 all along and made a change to your load balancer (that resulted in its current behavior), your blog post would likely not have blamed HTTP/2 but rather haproxy/ELB/etc.
- thayne 8y ago> Had you been using HTTP/2 all along and made a change to your load balancer (that resulted in its current behavior), your blog post would likely not have blamed HTTP/2 but rather haproxy/ELB/etc. I'm not exactly blaming HTTP/2, just saying the claim that switching to HTTP/2 is easy, safe, and only brings benefits is false.
- Dylan16807 8y ago> I'm not exactly blaming HTTP/2, just saying the claim that switching to HTTP/2 is easy, safe, and only brings benefits is false. Eh. Technically anything could cause problems. I don't think you'll find much in the way of claims that swapping out subsystems could only bring benefits.
- pwinnski 8y agoGoogle certainly leans pretty hard in that direction.[0] Any and all changes may have unintended side effects, but this particular combination didn't seem obvious to me except in retrospect. [0] https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/performance/http2/ https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/performance/h...
- j16sdiz 8y agoJust like what they did with AMP. Google had turned evil.