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

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

From: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 22:50:20 +0100 (CET)
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, Peter Lepeska <bizzbyster@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1312132240300.2123@tvnag.unkk.fr>
On Fri, 13 Dec 2013, James M Snell wrote:

> My take away from your response is that, so far, the only benefit HTTP/2 
> will have to offer RESTful API developers is improved performance in some 
> scenarios and fewer bits sent over the wire on average.

What about the convenience of running only HTTP/2 on your server and not have 
to manage legacy HTTP as well? I'd call that a benefit. Or possitive side- 

And I think better performance for your use case is a reason enough to use a 
protocol, even if that's not a browser.

> My question is: is that going to be enough to warrant broad adoption among 
> that group of developers?

I'm absolutely convinced that none of us here can KNOW the answer to that. 
With a solid protocol spec there will be HTTP/2 implementations written. If 
they are good enough and there are perceived benefits in using them, then the 
developers will use them.

I have such users in the curl community. I want to and plan to offer this 
ability to them.


  / daniel.haxx.se
Received on Friday, 13 December 2013 21:50:52 UTC

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