- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 13:44:48 +0100
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Cc: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 10:06:51AM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > -------- > In message <510B8F46.20809@treenet.co.nz>, Amos Jeffries writes: > >On 1/02/2013 8:09 p.m., James M Snell wrote: > > >> +------------------------------+ > >> |S|len(method)|method|len(host)| > >> +-+-------+----+---------+-----+ > >> | host | len(path) | path | > >> +------------------------------+ > > >This makes several assumptions which are false and will cause a lot of > >trouble: > > I must admit that I'm not terribly happy about the lack of generality > in James' proposal either. > > The performance and complexity difference between James proposal > and simply: > > [length][method][length][absolute_uri] > > Is vanishingly small, but the latter would be much more general. > > I might even be tempted to suggest: > > [length][method SP absolute_uri] > > Because the most frequently used methods would take up less space > that way. Or something like : [host_len][uri_len][host][uri] That way, host is always easy to look up (fixed position), uri is easy to look up, and the concatenation of the two is always present. > We could even decide to encode the HTTP "GET" method simply as "G", > "POST" as "P" etc. while still leaving room in the protocol for > somebody to implement a custom "FOOBAR" method of their own. That would be a good start, yes. Willy
Received on Friday, 1 February 2013 12:48:32 UTC