yup. Not a big deal either way. :) -=R On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote: > My preference for flag over opcode has to do with "one frame to open > streams" while I acknowledge the extra branch in the frame decoder -- > though i think it might remove a branch in the session management code :) > > > > On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I think that the opcode approach is easier (I have a single branch >> instead of nested branches), but don't think it is a big deal either way. >> >> -=R >> >> >> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:43 PM, William Chan (陈智昌) < >> willchan@chromium.org> wrote: >> >>> I have feelings about this bike shed color, but I don't care enough to >>> argue why mine is the best color ever. I am satisfied that there is a way >>> to convey priority within the same frame as the headers. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>wrote: >>> >>>> At the time Roberto made the argument that the number of flags (8) was >>>> more sparse than the number of frame types (256), but IIRC this was based >>>> on the flags applying to all Control frames. At this point we have (at >>>> least implicitly) decided that flags are frame-type specific (see PONG >>>> flag), so I don't believe the argument is valid any more. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Martin Thomson < >>>> martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I remember having almost this exact discussion in Tokyo. The only >>>>> point that didn't come up this time was an argument Roberto made, >>>>> namely: "A frame type is cheaper (fewer bits) than a flag." >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 29 May 2013 02:31:47 UTC