3 ms·

Well, SPDY might be a "prototype", but it's solving real problems today - I care less if it's perfect or not, if it solves all problems or not, as long as it's

by kolev 12y ago

Well, SPDY might be a "prototype", but it's solving real problems today - I care less if it's perfect or not, if it solves all problems or not, as long as it's easy to implement, has a decent footprint, and offers significant improvements over HTTP/1.1. An imperfect working prototype is better than a perfect blueprint that materializes in distant future where problems and environment can differ greatly.

adamtulinius 12y ago
Well, according to this mail from the Jetty-team, it doesn't seem like http/2.0 is easy to implement at all: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2014AprJun/0807.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2014AprJun/... Furthermore, if http/3.0 is already being discussed, why not just skip http/2.0 entirely, and live with the current http/1.1+SPDY situation until the work towards a new standard for http is actually done?
- canadev 12y ago
  What does "LC" mean in that post?
  - Tomte 12y ago
    "Last Call". See http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/help/state/draft-iesg/ http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/help/state/draft-iesg/
- kolev 12y ago
  Wait 5 more years? No thanks!
justincormack 12y ago
But you can continue to use it even if it is not the standard as it has widespread support.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
prohor 12y ago
But then you need to support 1.0, 1.1, 2.0 and 3.0. I'd rather wait a bit to avoid need to support yet another version. I can bet every new version of HTTP will cost millions of dollars across the industry. It is not agile where you just drop in a new increment. This is the base everybody need to support then and you won't be able to stop support in foreseeable future.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  > I can bet every new version of HTTP will cost millions of dollars across the industry. That would be a fairly easy bet, but I doubt anybody would take the other side. My own estimate at rolling out a major HTTP protocol revision across the industry would be in the 100's of millions. Take into account that we have approximately 750 million web sites and 3 billion clients.

by kolev 12y ago

adamtulinius 12y ago

Well, according to this mail from the Jetty-team, it doesn't seem like http/2.0 is easy to implement at all: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2014AprJun/0807.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2014AprJun/... Furthermore, if http/3.0 is already being discussed, why not just skip http/2.0 entirely, and live with the current http/1.1+SPDY situation until the work towards a new standard for http is actually done?

canadev 12y ago
What does "LC" mean in that post?
- Tomte 12y ago
  "Last Call". See http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/help/state/draft-iesg/ http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/help/state/draft-iesg/
kolev 12y ago
Wait 5 more years? No thanks!

justincormack 12y ago

But you can continue to use it even if it is not the standard as it has widespread support.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

prohor 12y ago

But then you need to support 1.0, 1.1, 2.0 and 3.0. I'd rather wait a bit to avoid need to support yet another version. I can bet every new version of HTTP will cost millions of dollars across the industry. It is not agile where you just drop in a new increment. This is the base everybody need to support then and you won't be able to stop support in foreseeable future.

jacquesm 12y ago
> I can bet every new version of HTTP will cost millions of dollars across the industry. That would be a fairly easy bet, but I doubt anybody would take the other side. My own estimate at rolling out a major HTTP protocol revision across the industry would be in the 100's of millions. Take into account that we have approximately 750 million web sites and 3 billion clients.