W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: Should Web Services be served by a different HTTP n+1?

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 10:48:06 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwhCtd-m5uJnv+vcTTq9WcR3bEDQndV2cZqQE1ApNasCXA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>wrote:

> On 2013-01-24 16:20, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>> If people don't want there to be two different families then I think the
>> header compression needs to be totally rethunk.
>> I do not want to have a compression library in my Web Services. Too much
>> code bloat and more importantly, too much memory overhead and too much
>> CPU.
>> If we want to have a single protocol then maybe what we should be
>> thinking of is using the coap codes as the starting point for header
>> tokenization.
>> ...
> As a matter of fact, figuring out the header field serialization is one of
> the current HTTP/2 related topics the WG discusses. See the various
> proposals and test suites.

Yes and the SDPY proposal is what prompted my proposal to split the

SPDY is hyper optimized for Web Browsing to the total exclusion of all
other concerns. I would like a simpler mechanism for parsing headers. SPDY
is a lot more complex.

I am not very interested in the relative packing efficiency of a class of
algorithms I don't want. I don't care how many bytes the compression saves
on the wire if it requires me to pipeline my messages through a compression

Anything that involves hash functions is going to be a non starter as far
as I am concerned.

Website: http://hallambaker.com/
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2013 15:48:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:09 UTC