3 ms·

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'

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.