W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal

From: <bizzbyster@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 10:31:13 -0700
Cc: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <BF6EF69C-B223-4755-8ECE-E452DDA24F9E@gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Will's original document on priorities included a few use cases that I'm fuzzy on how they would work in this new proposal. For example, let's say my browser is set to open two tabs to webpage1 and webpage2 when I first launch it. Let's say that webpage1 is the foreground tab initially but I immediately decide to click on webpage2 while both pages are loading. Changing the priority of the objects to reflect this was an easy thing to do with priority groups but I'm fuzzy on how this would work using Jeff's priorities proposal.  Can someone clarify?

Thanks in advance,

Peter


On Apr 17, 2014, at 6:17 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 8 April 2014 16:23, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote:
>> I believe it would be simpler (both conceptually and in practice) to
>> slightly modify the priority structure.
> 
> Looking back at this, this proposal makes the following two changes:
> 
> 1. removes priority groups
> 
> 2. adds weights at all levels of the dependency tree (as opposed to
> just at the grouping layer)
> 
> The first removes some capabilities, as has been noted elsewhere.  The
> ability to create and weight a named thing that is independent of any
> stream is a features, but it's also complexity.  This is a net
> complexity loss.
> 
> The second is arguably an expansion of the capabilities, which could
> be perceived as an increase in complexity, except for the fact that it
> basically just removes a special case.  This is an increase in
> capability, which might be perceived equally as an increase in
> complexity or an increase in uniformity.
> 
> Personally, I'd like to hear more of what others think about this.
> The comments I've seen are generally favourable, but I know that Mike
> wants more time to consider the implications.
> 
> Is there anyone else on the fence, or - probably more importantly -
> opposed to making this change?
> 
Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2014 17:31:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:30 UTC