W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2013

Non-browser uses (was Re: disabling header compression)

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 11:27:52 -0800
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXMJCQQEf=K41h_cxOXYWYB4_tmn4FXtu83rgZzP4B=7A@mail.gmail.com>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, Peter Lepeska <bizzbyster@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 13 December 2013 10:48, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
> On the question of adoption. Let me pose this question: what benefits,
> if any, does adoption of HTTP/2 offer to developers of HTTP-based
> RESTful APIs? What significant problems does HTTP/2 address that would
> justify the implementation costs? (Or is this another, "well they can
> just keep using HTTP/1" answer?)

I don't think that I'm alone in this, but the bulk of my day job at
Skype was building those sorts of systems with what you call "RESTful
APIs".  Having HTTP/2.0 was identified as a being hugely important to
the long term viability of those systems.  The primary feature there
was multiplexing (reducing HOL blocking is a big win), but we did also
identify compression as important (and potentially massively so).  We
were also speculatively interested in push for a couple of use cases.
Received on Friday, 13 December 2013 19:28:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:21 UTC