- From: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
- Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2014 07:26:13 +1000
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CACweHNA5NHyMyENDskj+FyCXmh8usY++JNv1aJtay89TJfz6rA@mail.gmail.com>
On 13 June 2014 22:42, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote: > > So Jetty's had a working http2 implementation for less that 48 hours and > I'm already feeling the affect of working code in as much as some of my > vocal opposition to some hpack/http2 design is melting away. When asked > "should we make a provision for optionally flow controlling headers?", my > response was - nah it is too difficult to do without radical change, so > we'll just have to reject connections that send big headers. > > However, I'm not100% sure if my acceptance is really for good technical > reasons, or just because of some kind of Stockholm syndrome. > For what it's worth, even without a fully implemented HTTP stack, once my experimental HPACK+Huffman code was written and verified to at least theoretically interop [1], all the implementation pain sort of evaporated, so I'm in pretty much the same boat as Greg. HPACK felt painful to implement, but - at least in my case - it wasn't actually hard. And libraries are starting to become available, so the pain can be avoided if you don't mind flirting with a potential future monoculture. [1] it correctly parsed stories from https://github.com/http2jp/hpack-test-case/ -- Matthew Kerwin http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/
Received on Friday, 13 June 2014 21:26:41 UTC