3 ms·

These all sound like a step in the wrong direction to me: The reason HTTP has been so successful has been it's simplicity. HTTP with it's human readable format

by adamt 17y ago

These all sound like a step in the wrong direction to me: The reason HTTP has been so successful has been it's simplicity. HTTP with it's human readable format is not the most efficient, but this makes this it simple. Things like header compression to me are missing the point. SSL encryption will break all caching, and add latency in terms extra round-trip times. gzip encoding has minimal value on media data types (images, movies) that represent the majority of the data. This just sounds like a whole load of complexity for a relatively small one-off hit.

olefoo 17y ago
> SSL encryption will break all caching, and add latency in terms extra round-trip times. It won't break all caching, just intermediate caches. True this does raise bandwidth usage and initial page load latency (assuming static content is not already cached on the client), but to say it breaks all caching is off. That said, static image serving is not going to benefit from this new protocol all that much. It seems, like much of Google's other work in this area, to be focused on improving the performance of web-based applications.
- Periodic 17y ago
  > It is designed specifically for minimizing latency through features such as multiplexed streams, request prioritization and HTTP header compression. They specifically say their goal is to minimize latency to make web based applications more responsive. They aren't interested in making you able to download movies faster, what they want to do is make the web more responsive so that they can develop more apps for the web that traditional would have required a desktop client.
- ciupicri 17y ago
  > It won't break all caching, just intermediate caches. As far as I know, Firefox and maybe other browsers don't store on disk content delivered via https by default, which means that final caches will also be affected. Sure, the default can be changed, but it's an extra security risk. If it wouldn't be, the default setting wouldn't be like this.

by adamt 17y ago

olefoo 17y ago

> SSL encryption will break all caching, and add latency in terms extra round-trip times. It won't break all caching, just intermediate caches. True this does raise bandwidth usage and initial page load latency (assuming static content is not already cached on the client), but to say it breaks all caching is off. That said, static image serving is not going to benefit from this new protocol all that much. It seems, like much of Google's other work in this area, to be focused on improving the performance of web-based applications.

Periodic 17y ago
> It is designed specifically for minimizing latency through features such as multiplexed streams, request prioritization and HTTP header compression. They specifically say their goal is to minimize latency to make web based applications more responsive. They aren't interested in making you able to download movies faster, what they want to do is make the web more responsive so that they can develop more apps for the web that traditional would have required a desktop client.
ciupicri 17y ago
> It won't break all caching, just intermediate caches. As far as I know, Firefox and maybe other browsers don't store on disk content delivered via https by default, which means that final caches will also be affected. Sure, the default can be changed, but it's an extra security risk. If it wouldn't be, the default setting wouldn't be like this.