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: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:46:21 -0600
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOgzc7VTNb3OANxytvTimqkZuxFGH+xyr46jykeLzknUoQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
Cc: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> 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.

I'd rather we didn't seek stateful compression schemes at all...  That
aside, stateful compression needs to be something that either side of
a connection (client, proxy, server, whatever) can refuse to do, in
which case your implementation needn't implement compression.

> If we want to have a single protocol [...]

We definitely should want to have a single protocol.

Received on Thursday, 24 January 2013 17:46:45 UTC

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