W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: Implementing SPDY, is a day a meaningful criteria?

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 09:55:40 +1000
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <CE89FDDA-804C-4839-9075-0DDB7B4A3816@mnot.net>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
Phillip,

I gave my feedback on that way back when we started all of this, in <http://www.w3.org/mid/0C615921-7EE0-4E53-93F9-8B406D1561A1@mnot.net> (I see we're rehashing that thread in more ways than once now).

Regards,


On 16/07/2012, at 11:43 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

> How easy is it to implement SPDY, does the 'implement in a day'
> criteria make any sense?
> 
> I have written a LOT of HTTP clients and more than a few servers. I
> know that it is possible to hack 'something' together in a day and
> that implementing a full HTTP/1.1 will take considerably longer. So
> (1) what level of implementation are we talking about and (2) what
> support libraries are we including?
> 
> Implementing a text based protocol like HTTP is easy in C because
> stdlib gives you 70% of the code ready made. Implementing HTTP in Perl
> or the like is even easier as it provides the parsing ready made.
> 
> Take away those support libraries and implementation takes longer, a
> lot longer. Give people a similar library for SPDY and maybe the
> difficulty of implementation becomes equal. It might become easier.
> 
> 
> What I really care about is not how long it takes to code HTTP/2.0.
> There are going to be so many libraries floating about that it does
> not matter much. What I care about is not how long it takes to
> implement but if I can implement on restricted chips like embedded
> control systems. So code footprint is more important to me than
> time-to-implement. And I think it is a more objectively fair test.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Website: http://hallambaker.com/
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 16 July 2012 23:56:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 16 July 2012 23:56:15 GMT