Re: HTTP2 Expression of Interest : Squid

Server push is a terribly overloaded term.

In my case I'm referring to resources that would have been inlined into the
page. To avoid races, one must advertise that one will push that resource,
and since many pages are generated dynamically, this must be possible to
advertise after the headers have been sent.

The other case is full-duplex bidirectional streams, which is the domain of
the Websocket API, IMHO.

-=R
On Jul 15, 2012 10:27 AM, "Willy Tarreau" <w@1wt.eu> wrote:

> Hi Roberto,
>
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 10:05:31AM -0700, Roberto Peon wrote:
> > Note that, if ever one will wish to implement server push or anything
> > similar, there are ordering requirements that must be placed on at least
> > the content delivery of the requested resource and its associated
> metadata.
>
> Doug's EOI made me think again about server push. You may remember, we
> discussed the subject for countless hours when we met, with the problem
> basically being that when a client fetches a page, it also wants the
> objects in that page. Doug seems to need server push for instant delivery
> to the client of fresh new contents, which is different. And if we look
> at how the web is currently changing, we have more and more application
> code running on the browser (sometimes a smartphone) which parses contents
> delivered by the server. I suspect that once we have MUX in WebSocket, this
> new model will become even more prevalent.
>
> All this to say that maybe in the near future, the real need for server
> push will be for raw data processed by the application and not that much
> about page objects. I may be wrong, but this is probably something to
> think about, since in the end it will tell us whether we have to break
> the request/response model or not, which has a huge impact on content
> filtering BTW.
>
> > It is all cost/benefit tradeoffs, all the way down. :)
>
> Exactly :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Willy
>
>