Re: HTTP/2.0 -04 candidate

I'm not as concerned about this, because I'm optimistically thinking more
long-term and envisioning a world where domain sharding hacks are a thing
of the past. Yeah, we're a long ways off still. But I'm still beating the
drums as long as I can to get people to deprecate those hacks.


On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:

> Actually in this case I'm worried about latency more than the cost of
> additional connections!
> I don't want to spend the extra RTs necessary to set up additional (and
> not that useful) SSL connections if it is avoidable.
> Requiring that would make HTTP/2.0 significantly slower than HTTP/1 in
> many cases where domain sharding has been used. :(
> -=R
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On 2 July 2013 12:51, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Yes, there are cases where the mechanism spec'd in SPDY today is
>> suboptimal.
>> > That seems like a poor reason to reject it, however, when the
>> alternative is
>> > guaranteed suboptimality.
>>
>> That's true, the coalescing that SPDY does won't work 100% of the
>> time, but the times where it does work will make (most) things better.
>>  If by better you mean fewer connections - and we're fairly sure that
>> is actually better.
>>
>
>