Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hello HTTP/2, Goodbye SPDY

blog.chromium.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 181 posts

Re: Hello HTTP/2, Goodbye SPDY

#71

Post by Touche »

dragonwriter wrote: post #18
mahouse wrote: post #15

Is HTTPS mandatory on HTTP/2 like it was on SPDY?

> Is HTTPS mandatory on HTTP/2 like it was on SPDY? Not in terms of the protocol spec, but most major browser vendors have indicated that they only intend to support HTTP/2 in-browser over TLS connections, so in practice for typical, browser-targeting use cases, it looks like it will, at least initially.

That's so lame. It's so easy to set up a new website today, it's going to be a huge burden in the future. Some of us still make websites for fun, not as businesses. I guess I have to buy a cheap ssl certificate from some sleezy website every time I feel creative.

Re: Hello HTTP/2, Goodbye SPDY

#72

Post by striking »

venaoy wrote: post #63
striking wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> benchmarks The linked benchmark is flawed, as dlubarov noted above. I wanted to note that it is easy to write a flawed benchmark. And in this case, benchmarks are unhelpful, because my major lament is not efficiency or lack thereof, it is the lack of any new features or any consideration to any of the other pain points that exist on the Web today. > doesn't mean all benchmarks are unhelpful Didn't mean to imply tha…

> The linked benchmark is flawed, as dlubarov noted above. No, I already replied to him. You and him should spend some time looking at the Chrome network console visiting some of the top500 sites. It is very common for sites to be exactly like that: tons of small requests for small resources.

Okay. Fair enough. I concede that efficiency is important and that SPDY / HTTP/2 can improve upon it. But I don't believe that this is worth the hype because the exposed featureset is otherwise tiny. Efficiency is cool, yes, but I'm personally waiting until HTTP/3 fixes the other wrong things with the Internet before I implement anything. I think the amount of effort that goes into this is not worth the result. Why include tons of small resources on your page if they're not necessary? Why revamp a protocol entirely if all you have to do is stop including tons of small resources?

Re: Hello HTTP/2, Goodbye SPDY

#73

Post by magicalist »

Touche wrote: post #71
dragonwriter wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is HTTPS mandatory on HTTP/2 like it was on SPDY? Not in terms of the protocol spec, but most major browser vendors have indicated that they only intend to support HTTP/2 in-browser over TLS connections, so in practice for typical, browser-targeting use cases, it looks like it will, at least initially.

That's so lame. It's so easy to set up a new website today, it's going to be a huge burden in the future. Some of us still make websites for fun, not as businesses. I guess I have to buy a cheap ssl certificate from some sleezy website every time I feel creative.

Or we're about to see a whole lot of market incentive to make it easier to set up a site under TLS, which may only happen with this kind of unilateral move.

Re: Hello HTTP/2, Goodbye SPDY

#74

Post by enneff »

drderidder wrote: post #54

I got a copy of Paul-Henning Kamp's critique "HTTP/2.0 - The IETF is Phoning It In" off the ACM website before the link went dead. Here's a bit of what he said about it: "Some will expect a major update to the world’s most popular protocol to be a technical masterpiece and textbook example for future students of protocol design. Some will expect that a protocol designed during the Snowden revelations will improve the…

Whatever PHK wants it to be, HTTP/2 is a great step forward from where we are today. Check this out: https://http2.golang.org/gophertiles

This is going to make the web so much faster, particular on mobile devices.

Re: Hello HTTP/2, Goodbye SPDY

#75

Post by enneff »

jcoffland wrote: post #60

Google just loves exerting their power. It will take more than Chrome devs declaring it a done deal to make this happen. The browser is only half the issue. Web servers must get on board for this to matter. Obviously Safari, FireFox and IE have some say in this too.

Pretty much everyone in the industry is on-board with HTTP/2. It's not just Google.

Re: Hello HTTP/2, Goodbye SPDY

#76

Post by enneff »

striking wrote: post #50
StefanKarpinski wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This attitude is exactly how you make sure that nothing ever changes or improves. It is "the perfect is the enemy of the good" exemplified. HTTP/2 is a huge improvement over HTTP in many very important ways. True, it's not perfect, but guess what? 2 is not the last version number out there. We can switch to HTTP/2 now and fix the rest of the problems with HTTP/3. Moreover, it seems like we are collectively getting be…

I appreciate your optimism, but do realize that there isn't really a massive improvement unless you're Google. I don't see this as worthy of the "/2" suffix; Google might like it because it allows them to make their tech standard, but other than that it's unnecessary marketing. HTTP has never been the bottleneck. I think IPv6 is excellent and a needed, massive improvement especially since IPv4 is no longer tenable. H…

Check this out https://http2.golang.org/gophertiles and tell me that HTTP isn't the bottleneck, especially for high-latency connections. This is going to make the web so much faster.

Re: Hello HTTP/2, Goodbye SPDY

#77

Post by matthewmacleod »

striking wrote: post #37
kllrnohj wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not ever supporting HTTP/2. Congrats? Want a cookie or something? Do you have an actual complaint with the spec or do you just want to be an old man yelling at a cloud?

My "actual" complaint is that it's not enough to be a major version and that it's a system that only benefits large corporations with data to pre-push, with no other benefits. You can think differently, of course, but after looking at this ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8824789 ) I reconsidered my previously positive view on it. (Also, I'd love a cookie)

This is pretty nonsense. There are a bunch of useful improvements in HTTP/2 – it's not perfect, but I'd rather see incremental improvements of this sort than e.g. the ridiculously extended adoption times we've seen with IPv6.

Re: Hello HTTP/2, Goodbye SPDY

#78

Post by enneff »

striking wrote: post #44
exelius wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you'd be ok if they called it HTTP/1.2? Snark aside, it's a standardized way of allowing different architectural patterns that can benefit use cases we haven't even seen yet. Yes, those architecture patterns currently benefit large corporations, but they're not being implemented at the expense of anything else. HTTP is a remarkably complete and flexible protocol. What other benefits were you expecting to see that…

From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8825001 : * no more easy debugging on the wire * another TCP like implementation inside the HTTP protocol * tons of binary data rather than text * a whole slew of features that we don't really need but that please some corporate sponsor because their feature made it in * continuing, damaging and absurd lack of DNS and IPv6 considerations * most notably the omission of any dis…

You do realise that the overwhelming majority (99%) of HTTP traffic is transferred to or from large companies like Google and Facebook? If it benefits their clients, then it benefits most of the web. HTTP/2 is particularly beneficial for the developing world, where latencies are higher. The world is bigger than you.

Also WTF does HTTP have to do with DNS, DNSSEC, and IPv6? Talk about layering violations...

Also, I think a total wire-protocol change warrants a major version number increase, not that it matters at all.

Re: Hello HTTP/2, Goodbye SPDY

#79

Post by derefr »

xpose2000 wrote: post #55

Does anyone know if Cloudflare has plans to implement HTTP/2? RIght now they support SPDY. I found the answer from their blog: "Part of the service CloudFlare provides is being on top of the latest advances in Internet and web technologies. We've stayed on top of SPDY and will continue to roll out updates as the protocol evolves (and we'll support HTTP/2 just as soon as it is practical)."

Since CloudFlare is an OpenResty (nginx + lua) shop, they'll likely get it as soon as it's in nginx.

Re: Hello HTTP/2, Goodbye SPDY

#80

Post by kllrnohj »

azakai wrote: post #36
kllrnohj wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> PNaCl is still enabled Eh? What is the spec competitor to PNaCl? asm.js is a cute trick but it still lacks threads which is easily one of the biggest features of PNaCl. So what actual viable alternatives are there to PNaCl?

We can discuss alternatives to PNaCl, but that isn't really the issue. Even if you have something you believe has no peer at the moment, that doesn't mean you can ship it without regards for the the standards process. It's still wrong for all the usual reasons. Of course, not having a good alternative might mean that the other parties in the standards process should take another look at it. But again, that's a totall…

> that doesn't mean you can ship it without regards for the the standards process. It's still wrong for all the usual reasons.

What Google is doing with PNaCl is the standards process. Standards start life by being not-standards that someone shipped and enough people liked to make it into a standard.

There is nothing wrong here, nothing whatsoever. This is exactly how the process should work. Design-by-committee standards suck. Standards that won through raw competition? Those are all the good ones.

Post reply on HN