3 ms·
I set out to create a "simpler HTTP" once. Ended up concluding that by the time you've added the basic features, you need most of what a minimal HTTP request gi
by apitman 2y ago
I set out to create a "simpler HTTP" once. Ended up concluding that by the time you've added the basic features, you need most of what a minimal HTTP request gives you. There might be some marginal gains to be made, but it's simply not worth it. HTTP is too good.
Commenting on this proposal directly, I don't see how a stateful protocol could ever be simpler than a subset of HTTP/1.1 with range requests.
- ahoka 2y agoThis, HTTP/1.1 already is a simple protocol with the “things you will forget to add in the first version” added.
- cies 2y agoThis is not trying to replace HTTP, it's an attempt at an alternative to "HTTP for big blob downloads". Likewise for the other protocols mentions.
- lxgr 2y agoDoes it add anything that HTTP can't do with range requests? I remember hearing that range requests are clunky to implement for HTTP (reverse) proxies, but otherwise they seem to do their job just fine?
- SahAssar 2y agoI'm guessing range requests are not problematic for proxies, just for caches (which are usually proxies also). A pure proxy (reverse or not) should have no problem with a range request.
- lxgr 2y agoAh yes, that's what I meant – problematic for caching proxies. Regular ones can of course just pass through the request.