3 ms·
> Due to latency it might waste some bandwidth, but it's deemed to be an insignificant problem, since otherwise nothing else would be using the connection anywa
by lucaspiller 12y ago
> Due to latency it might waste some bandwidth, but it's deemed to be an insignificant problem, since otherwise nothing else would be using the connection anyway
That sounds like it could be an issue on mobile devices. If I've got a 1GB data plan, I don't want you sending large files that I've already got cached. Even partially sending them could consume significant bandwidth given the latency involved.
- bgentry 12y agoHTTP/2's flow control offers a bit of a solution here for mobile devices. Flow control operates on a credits/tokens scheme at both the connection level and the stream level. A mobile client could use a low initial window size so that all new streams are limited in how much data they can send. The client can preemptively grant large flow control windows to streams that it requests, and retroactively grant additional credits to push streams that it decides it wants. The tradeoff is that you're introducing a round-trip for pushed resources to acknowledge that you want to receive the entire resource. That may or may not make sense, depending on the use case. http://http2.github.io/http2-spec/#FlowControl http://http2.github.io/http2-spec/#FlowControl