Re: Implementing SPDY, is a day a meaningful criteria?


I gave my feedback on that way back when we started all of this, in <> (I see we're rehashing that thread in more ways than once now).


On 16/07/2012, at 11:43 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

> How easy is it to implement SPDY, does the 'implement in a day'
> criteria make any sense?
> I have written a LOT of HTTP clients and more than a few servers. I
> know that it is possible to hack 'something' together in a day and
> that implementing a full HTTP/1.1 will take considerably longer. So
> (1) what level of implementation are we talking about and (2) what
> support libraries are we including?
> Implementing a text based protocol like HTTP is easy in C because
> stdlib gives you 70% of the code ready made. Implementing HTTP in Perl
> or the like is even easier as it provides the parsing ready made.
> Take away those support libraries and implementation takes longer, a
> lot longer. Give people a similar library for SPDY and maybe the
> difficulty of implementation becomes equal. It might become easier.
> What I really care about is not how long it takes to code HTTP/2.0.
> There are going to be so many libraries floating about that it does
> not matter much. What I care about is not how long it takes to
> implement but if I can implement on restricted chips like embedded
> control systems. So code footprint is more important to me than
> time-to-implement. And I think it is a more objectively fair test.
> -- 
> Website:

Mark Nottingham

Received on Monday, 16 July 2012 23:56:07 UTC