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

HTTP/2 Is Done

mnot.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 144 posts

Re: HTTP/2 Is Done

#4

Post by andrewstuart2 »

lazyloop wrote: post #3

HTTP/2 is a bad protocol, that much is clear by now. Luckily most of us won't have to deal with it, because it will be deployed merely as an optimization, with a new generation of reverse-proxy servers, like H2O. https://github.com/h2o/h2o

Care to at least explain why you think it's a bad protocol?

Re: HTTP/2 Is Done

#5

Post by mattbessey »

andrewstuart2 wrote: post #4
lazyloop wrote: post #3

HTTP/2 is a bad protocol, that much is clear by now. Luckily most of us won't have to deal with it, because it will be deployed merely as an optimization, with a new generation of reverse-proxy servers, like H2O. https://github.com/h2o/h2o

Care to at least explain why you think it's a bad protocol?

Well he doesn't need to, by his own proclamation there's no arguing! /s

Re: HTTP/2 Is Done

#6

Post by lazyloop »

andrewstuart2 wrote: post #4
lazyloop wrote: post #3

HTTP/2 is a bad protocol, that much is clear by now. Luckily most of us won't have to deal with it, because it will be deployed merely as an optimization, with a new generation of reverse-proxy servers, like H2O. https://github.com/h2o/h2o

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

Re: HTTP/2 Is Done

#7

Post by jgrahamc »

[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

#8

Post by IvyMike »

lazyloop wrote: post #6
andrewstuart2 wrote: post #4

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

HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8850059

Re: HTTP/2 Is Done

#9

Post by logicallee »

this seems nice, pretty conservative.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-17

"

Abstract

   This specification describes an optimized expression of the semantics
   of the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP).  HTTP/2 enables a more
   efficient use of network resources and a reduced perception of
   latency by introducing header field compression and allowing multiple
   concurrent exchanges on the same connection.  It also introduces
   unsolicited push of representations from servers to clients.

   This specification is an alternative to, but does not obsolete, the
   HTTP/1.1 message syntax.  HTTP's existing semantics remain unchanged.
"

all these changes seem good without a large change, just an improved user experience. (the Introduction section is also good - "HTTP/2 addresses these issues by defining an optimized mapping of HTTP's semantics to an underlying connection", I'd quote more but why not click through the link at the top of this comment. basically just some compression of headers, none of the funky stuff to keep connections alive for server push, prioritizing important requests, etc. all without changing semantics much - great.)

Re: HTTP/2 Is Done

#10

Post by DannyBee »

lazyloop wrote: post #6
andrewstuart2 wrote: post #4

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

Except, as HN has mostly ripped him apart for, his argument is very weak at best.

He goes into zero detail, and where he does, it says things like "likely to increase CO2 consumption"?

Seriously?

Post reply on HN