- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 11:58:39 +0100
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- CC: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2012-01-26 11:37, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:13:28AM +0100, Julian Reschke wrote: >> On 2012-01-26 10:35, Willy Tarreau wrote: >>> ... >>> I find it pretty cumbersome to force everyone to support zlib, especially >>> in environments where it provides no benefit (small requests/responses) >>> and only adds CPU usage and latency. It's especially true on intermediary >>> components which would have to decompress everything to be able to perform >>> trivial actions such as decide what server to forward to. Using either pure >>> binary header names or short forms would already be quite efficient. >>> ... >> >> What's a binary header name? > > Oh I'm realizing I wrote that ! I was meaning the use of enums instead of > headers for the common ones. For instance, we could have bytes 0x80 to 0xFF > directly mapped to most common headers and be able to represent 128 different > headers with a single byte, and have the other chars for the other ones. > We could even push the principle further and have the Connection header > apply the same rules (eg: use high bytes to reference well-known headers > or tokens). Ack, just clarifying. An alternative would be to reserve two-letter header field names, and assign those to those headers where it makes sense...
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2012 10:59:20 UTC