Earlier quoted context omitted.
Care to at least explain why you think it's a bad protocol?
Poul-Henning Kamp (the author of Varnish) explained it best. http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2716278
HTTP/2 Is Done
11–20 of 144 posts
Re: HTTP/2 Is Done
#12[placeholder for commentary about how HTTP/2 is a bad protocol because it's binary and everything could have been fixed in a text protocol follow by ad nauseum repetition of all the same old arguments]
Re: HTTP/2 Is Done
#13[placeholder for commentary about how HTTP/2 is a bad protocol because it's binary and everything could have been fixed in a text protocol follow by ad nauseum repetition of all the same old arguments]
Re: HTTP/2 Is Done
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
Poul-Henning Kamp (the author of Varnish) explained it best. http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2716278
Do you have another explanation which hasn't been torn apart by Hacker News commentators already? As someone who would like to avoid going to the trouble to implement HTTP2, I'm not being sarcastic - I truly want to know why HTTP2 is so bad, and I want to read it from someone who backs up their words with cold-hard facts
Re: HTTP/2 Is Done
#15Re: HTTP/2 Is Done
#16The future looks more like this, as the default, with no special effort required: https://http2.golang.org/gophertiles
May nobody else have to suffer through writing an interoperable HTTP/1.1 parser!
Re: HTTP/2 Is Done
#17Re: HTTP/2 Is Done
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have another explanation which hasn't been torn apart by Hacker News commentators already? As someone who would like to avoid going to the trouble to implement HTTP2, I'm not being sarcastic - I truly want to know why HTTP2 is so bad, and I want to read it from someone who backs up their words with cold-hard facts
This for example happened in the HTTP working group earlier today, the whole thing was rushed and the known flaws just keep adding up. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2015JanMar...
I think you need to expand a little more on why you feel this is a "known flaw".
Re: HTTP/2 Is Done
#19[placeholder for commentary about how HTTP/2 is a bad protocol because it's binary and everything could have been fixed in a text protocol follow by ad nauseum repetition of all the same old arguments]
While there has always been some degree of disagreement regarding technological matters, I think we're really seeing a lot more of it these days, especially when it comes to projects that are open source, or standards that are supposedly open. HTTP/2 is a good example. But we've also got GNOME 3, systemd, how systemd has been included in various Linux distros, many of the recent changes to Firefox, and so forth.
Not only is this disagreement more prevalent, it's also much harsher than what we've seen in the past. Instead of seeing compromise, we're seeing marginalization. We're repeatedly seeing a small number of people force their preferences upon increasingly larger masses of unwilling victims. We're seeing consensus being claimed, but this is only an illusion that barely masks the resentment that is building.
What we're seeing goes beyond mere competition between factions with differing situations. We're seeing any sort of competition, or even just dissent, being highly discouraged, suppressed, or even prevented wherever possible. Those whose needs aren't being met end up backed into a corner and shunned, rather than any effort being put into cooperating with them, with helping them, or even just with considering their views.
This isn't a healthy situation for the community to be in, especially when it comes to projects that allegedly pride themselves on openness. We've already seen this kind of polarization severely harm the GNOME 3 project. We're seeing things get pretty bad within the Debian project. And the HTTP/2 situation hasn't been very encouraging, either.
Re: HTTP/2 Is Done
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Poul-Henning Kamp (the author of Varnish) explained it best. http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2716278
Do you have another explanation which hasn't been torn apart by Hacker News commentators already? As someone who would like to avoid going to the trouble to implement HTTP2, I'm not being sarcastic - I truly want to know why HTTP2 is so bad, and I want to read it from someone who backs up their words with cold-hard facts
Good luck with that. Google has been incredibly adept at using the leverage of their search engine to make webmasters adhere to best practices. ("mobile friendly" e-mails lately, anyone?) Once HTTP/2 lands as a default in Chrome, Apache, Nginx, and Netty, of course they'll push HTTP/2-friendly sites higher in search results.