3 ms·
I see what you’re saying and agree that HTTP3 is complicated but I would that since it’s a backwards compatible standard, the added complexities are completely
by skaushik92 3y ago
I see what you’re saying and agree that HTTP3 is complicated but I would that since it’s a backwards compatible standard, the added complexities are completely optional. For most use cases the basic protocol is perfectly suitable and only as the scale evolves does it require the additional complexity.
- samtho 3y agoI understand what you’re saying, but if someone decides to post a link to their project that is an HTTP/3 server in under X lines of code but only implements HTTP/2 features, is it really an HTTP/3 web server?
- fsckboy 3y agothe HTTP/3 standard for servers is not backward compatible with HTTP/2 servers, it is backward compatible with HTTP/2 clients. And vice versa And therefore, an HTTP/2 server calling itself compatible with HTTP/3 clients is OK
- samtho 3y agoIt might be OK on a technical level, but my concern is where someone is showing off a project they used to supposedly learn how to implement HTTP/3 but only goes far enough to use an HTTP/2 implementation because fully implementing 3 is too complex or not worth it.
- skaushik92 3y agoWhere does it say it is an HTTP/3 server? Looking at the tests it seems that it’s just a HTTP/1 server I think.