So, we are looking to define three layers: the HTTP compatible layer on top of a "stream" management layer on top of a transport? Is that what you're wanting? On Mar 30, 2012 8:12 PM, "tom" <zs68j2ee@gmail.com> wrote: > Separate HTTP message format and under-hood transport as two specs should > earn expansibility and portability. > > Actually, Web app runs above HTTP and don't care what's transport to use. > And, the different transport can provide the specific benefits. > For example, UDP is easy to setup P2P communication, TCP is for > client/server communication and SPDY for multiplexing connection. > > Best regards > Tom > > On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 6:55 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>wrote: > >> In message < >> CAKZH0EuSWjgbM6No6hDv7wLSy_ZvFQJjgR4z7CMtAd3H9HG2tA@mail.gmail.com> >> , Kevin Cathcart writes: >> >> >The correct thing to do is pretty obvious >> >to me. Document the core HTTP protocol in a message format agnostic >> >way. >> > >> >[...] >> > >> >Separate specifications would define message/transport formats. >> >> Seconded. >> >> -- >> Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 >> phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 >> FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe >> Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by >> incompetence. >> >> >
Received on Saturday, 31 March 2012 04:23:55 UTC