SPDY on Rails
blog.bugsnag.com
SPDY on Rails
1–10 of 17 posts
Re: SPDY on Rails
#2They forget to explain what problem they are trying to solve. SPDY will benefit google in the race for 100ms response time. For the rest of us, HTTP does the job. But without the hype effect, I suppose...
Re: SPDY on Rails
#3They forget to explain what problem they are trying to solve. SPDY will benefit google in the race for 100ms response time. For the rest of us, HTTP does the job. But without the hype effect, I suppose...
This is a strange comment. SPDY benefits everyone who uses it, not just Google. And actually, for any site with authentication plain HTTP does not do the job, since all requests that pass authentication information should be encrypted. So HTTPS is a requirement and if SPDY can help make HTTPS faster then everyone wins.
Re: SPDY on Rails
#4This isn't really about Rails at all. But it's still useful as another anecdote about how SPDY is used in production.
Basically if you are set up with the now-fashionable architecture of a caching reverse proxy serving static content (nginx or Apache) sitting in front of a set of application servers then this applies to you too.
Just compile nginx with the SPDY patch or use mod_spdy with Apache and your back-end application servers won't even need to know what the transport protocol between client and reverse proxy is. It will be handled transparently.
Re: SPDY on Rails
#5They forget to explain what problem they are trying to solve. SPDY will benefit google in the race for 100ms response time. For the rest of us, HTTP does the job. But without the hype effect, I suppose...
As a user, I mostly like SPDY because it makes HTTPS better (not perfect, but better than what was there before), and I wish more sites used an encrypted connection by default. Anything that brings us closer to that is desirable, IMO.
That's mostly out of principle -- I just wish there was less plaintext info swirling around the net. For some people it could be a life or death benefit (ie. civil right activists in repressive countries), but for me personally, it's mostly an aesthetic pleasure (I enjoy the idea of more secure communications).
Re: SPDY on Rails
#6They forget to explain what problem they are trying to solve. SPDY will benefit google in the race for 100ms response time. For the rest of us, HTTP does the job. But without the hype effect, I suppose...
You may find interesting the fact that most of the IETF basically agree to base HTTP 2.0 on SPDY, with those disagreeing being mostly Microsoft delegates voting for Microsoft's S+M proposal.
Re: SPDY on Rails
#7They forget to explain what problem they are trying to solve. SPDY will benefit google in the race for 100ms response time. For the rest of us, HTTP does the job. But without the hype effect, I suppose...
This is a strange comment. SPDY benefits everyone who uses it, not just Google. And actually, for any site with authentication plain HTTP does not do the job, since all requests that pass authentication information should be encrypted. So HTTPS is a requirement and if SPDY can help make HTTPS faster then everyone wins.
SPDY benefits everyone who uses it, not just Google.
You seem to not notice the elephant in the room, being the mandatory TLS encryption.
Re: SPDY on Rails
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a strange comment. SPDY benefits everyone who uses it, not just Google. And actually, for any site with authentication plain HTTP does not do the job, since all requests that pass authentication information should be encrypted. So HTTPS is a requirement and if SPDY can help make HTTPS faster then everyone wins.
SPDY benefits everyone who uses it, not just Google. You seem to not notice the elephant in the room, being the mandatory TLS encryption.
What's wrong with mandatory encryption? Do you still use rsh to log in to your servers?
Re: SPDY on Rails
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
SPDY benefits everyone who uses it, not just Google. You seem to not notice the elephant in the room, being the mandatory TLS encryption.
What's wrong with mandatory encryption? Do you still use rsh to log in to your servers?
What's wrong with mandatory encryption?
Some people say that it uses too much computational resources, for instance. Others complain that mandatory TLS increases latency by one additional RTT. Mandatory TLS is a biggest point of conflict at the IETF discussion about SPDY being the HTTP successor (at least from what I heard), though many sides disagree for evil reasons.
Do you still use rsh to log in to your servers?
Does this question add anything of value to the discussion?
Re: SPDY on Rails
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's wrong with mandatory encryption? Do you still use rsh to log in to your servers?
What's wrong with mandatory encryption? Some people say that it uses too much computational resources, for instance. Others complain that mandatory TLS increases latency by one additional RTT. Mandatory TLS is a biggest point of conflict at the IETF discussion about SPDY being the HTTP successor (at least from what I heard), though many sides disagree for evil reasons. Do you still use rsh to log in to your servers?…
Does this question add anything of value to the discussion?
Yes. If you are the "I hate encryption because it messes with my tinfoil hat" type, you'll get all angry and not reply. For anyone else, the question is just a minor annoyance to wade through ;)