4 ms·
>The effect being to derail most F/OSS HTTP libs, web servers, and TCP/IP stacks due to sheer complexity and conflicting goals. If you're trying to imply HTTP/
by yoro46 4y ago
>The effect being to derail most F/OSS HTTP libs, web servers, and TCP/IP stacks due to sheer complexity and conflicting goals.
If you're trying to imply HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 have this goal, then I am glad you are not writing any HTTP libraries. I am sick and tired of everyone rolling their own shoddy, incomplete HTTP/1.1 libraries with string splitting and regex. I safely assume any HTTP library that does not support at least HTTP/2 is exactly this.
I'm glad the "complexity" of HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 means less people are trying to make a half-assed implementation. By the time you get to actually sending stuff with HTTP/3, you'll be deep enough that you won't just forget the whole 3xx series of response codes.
- stingraycharles 4y agoThis seems like a weird argument to make: complexity of a spec as some kind of gatekeeper to prevent people from rolling their own implementation? The fact of the matter is that these people will probably still not use HTTP/2, but rather stick with their broken HTTP/1.1 implementation, and therefor forever requiring browsers to support this.