3 ms·

Don't shift the burden of proof-It is up to HTTP/2 proponents to demonstrate that the benefits are greater than the costs and from everything I've seen the bene

Don't shift the burden of proof-It is up to HTTP/2 proponents to demonstrate that the benefits are greater than the costs and from everything I've seen the benefits are meager and the costs are large.

matthewmacleod 12y ago
I'm not trying to shift the burden here, but the point made was along the lines of "HTTP2 is rubbish" - I've seen this a lot, with little to back it up. But I'd say some of the benefits were: - Server push support - Multiplexed requests/header compression/other performance improvements - Mandatory encryption support Downsides are (from what I understand): - Not a plaintext protocol There may be more downsides, which I'm happy to hear about.
- justincormack 12y ago
  Here is a thread about issues in serving it efficiently https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/mechanical-sympathy/http2/mechanical-sympathy/CWyAD-oF9Uw/ycO0vxGqMvsJ https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/mechanical-sympat...
- protonfish 12y ago
  Mandatory encryption support sounds like a good idea, but isn't that what the article was saying they aren't going to do? I would say the other things you mentioned are features, but not necessarily benefits. Server push is not something I want, and if I did, web sockets are probably a better solution. And those alleged performance improvements have yet to show a significant performance increase on real-world web sites.
- jimktrains2 12y ago
  > - Server push support Couldn't a multi-part document already do this? > - Mandatory encryption support Couldn't they just have said "OK, HTTP 1.2 MUST be done over a TLS connection?" Also, didn't the TLS-always idea go away recently? The downsides also include reïmplementing much of level 4 (congestion management, flow control, &c) and all of the complexity that goes with it.

3 ms·

Don't shift the burden of proof-It is up to HTTP/2 proponents to demonstrate that the benefits are greater than the costs and from everything I've seen the bene

by protonfish 12y ago

matthewmacleod 12y ago
I'm not trying to shift the burden here, but the point made was along the lines of "HTTP2 is rubbish" - I've seen this a lot, with little to back it up. But I'd say some of the benefits were: - Server push support - Multiplexed requests/header compression/other performance improvements - Mandatory encryption support Downsides are (from what I understand): - Not a plaintext protocol There may be more downsides, which I'm happy to hear about.
- justincormack 12y ago
  Here is a thread about issues in serving it efficiently https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/mechanical-sympathy/http2/mechanical-sympathy/CWyAD-oF9Uw/ycO0vxGqMvsJ https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/mechanical-sympat...
- protonfish 12y ago
  Mandatory encryption support sounds like a good idea, but isn't that what the article was saying they aren't going to do? I would say the other things you mentioned are features, but not necessarily benefits. Server push is not something I want, and if I did, web sockets are probably a better solution. And those alleged performance improvements have yet to show a significant performance increase on real-world web sites.
- jimktrains2 12y ago
  > - Server push support Couldn't a multi-part document already do this? > - Mandatory encryption support Couldn't they just have said "OK, HTTP 1.2 MUST be done over a TLS connection?" Also, didn't the TLS-always idea go away recently? The downsides also include reïmplementing much of level 4 (congestion management, flow control, &c) and all of the complexity that goes with it.