- From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 14:33:34 -0700
- To: Fred Akalin <akalin@google.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAP+FsNfVGPjJF_2BdrOW+xjKXPQNQTxaJZn_5iFppJys_9s8tg@mail.gmail.com>
If you added an item A at index 0, then B at 1, then substituted C in at 0, then B is the oldest. -=R On Sep 18, 2013 2:28 PM, "Fred Akalin" <akalin@google.com> wrote: > Just to clarify, is the oldest item the one with index 0, or some other > definition of oldest? > > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Awesome! >> >> The expiry mechanism should always be oldest item first. >> >> -=R >> On Sep 13, 2013 2:53 PM, "Fred Akalin" <akalin@google.com> wrote: >> >>> Hey all, >>> >>> I updated >>> http://akalin-chromium.github.io/httpbis-header-compression/compressor_test.html to >>> implement the HPACK-03 draft. In particular, I tried to make it a complete >>> an implementation as possible, and I added copious comments and references >>> to the spec to make it easy to validate and understand. >>> >>> The only thing I didn't implement is UTF-8 validation for header values. >>> Hopefully, the need for that will go away. >>> >>> Some thoughts: >>> >>> - There aren't any tests. I wanted to see how correct I can make the >>> implementation without them (which will be measured when the compliance >>> suite comes out). I'm sure there are bugs. >>> >>> - I didn't try very hard to make the encoder smart, but I did try to >>> make it exercise all the opcodes. >>> >>> - I found it quite helpful that the encoding context was precisely >>> defined (as a header table plus the reference set). However, I ultimately >>> found it better to encode the reference set as part of the header table (by >>> having a bit per entry) instead of having a separate data structure, since >>> it eliminates a bunch of logic to keep the indices in the two in sync. This >>> may have been obvious to some people, but not to me. I wonder if it's in >>> the scope of the spec to suggest this. >>> >>> - I also found it helpful to have a 'touch' flag per entry since >>> encoding/decoding requires processing of the untouched subset of the >>> reference set. >>> >>> - For encoding I also needed to keep track of the number of touches >>> (representing the number of times the entry would be explicitly emitted), >>> and I needed to make a distinction between no touches and 0 touches >>> (representing an implicit emission). This is to support duplicate headers, >>> which was tricky to get right. >>> >>> - It would be nice to have explicit bounds for encoded integers, string >>> lengths, header lengths, etc. I didn't try to make the encoder/decoder >>> streaming, since that would complicate the implementation, but it seems >>> difficult to guarantee memory bounds without the above explicit bounds. >>> >>> - It would be nice to clarify the behavior when the max header table >>> size is reduced. I just implemented popping from the front until the new >>> bound is satisfied. >>> >>> - I didn't find the need to encode index vs. index + 1 too confusing >>> this time around. I feel like making the header table start at 1 would >>> simply move the off-by-one bugs someplace else. I don't feel too strongly >>> about this, though. >>> >>> Comments, pull requests, etc. welcome! >>> >>> -- Fred >>> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 18 September 2013 21:34:01 UTC