Re: PRIORITY extension

On Jul 14, 2014, at 6:04 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> On Jul 14, 2014, at 5:09 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:
> > In message <CAOdDvNr0PQFWm8qg7oz1tmAS3qaJK9O8fWkqoUJR9sqP+RwX1g@mail.gmail.com>, Patrick McManus
> > writes:
> >
> > >> I keep hearing this argument over and over. Is the goal just to finish, no
> > >> matter what?
> > >
> > >Of course not. But finishing is critically important.
> >
> > Absolutely, but the quality of the result is far more important
> > than some arbitrary deadline.
> >
> > The most important part is deployment.
> > This is true of transports and application-layer stuff.
> > .. and we know it works when folks implement things properly, because we have experience in production with real, real-world use.
> > The risk of getting it terribly wrong is low given this implementation experience.
> 
> What about the stream dependencies though? I assume you mean the experience is the simpler SPDY priority?
> 
> The spec would be a hell of a lot simpler without this dep complexity, which is what I think scares people away (well that and the scary rfc comment).
> 
> 
> We know that getting priority right is necessary to experiencing the potential benefit of multiplexing.
> We know that the simply priority scheme from SPDY kinda worked, but was failling for a number of usecases.
> Given that the old priority system expresses a subset of what the new one allows, it is unlikely we'd be making anything worse, though there is a complexity price to pay.
> -=R
>  

OK, thats good to know. 

--
Jason T. Greene
WildFly Lead / JBoss EAP Platform Architect
JBoss, a division of Red Hat

Received on Monday, 14 July 2014 23:20:14 UTC