- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 11:51:40 +1100
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org>, Daniel Sommermann <dcsommer@fb.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Speaking personally -- I'm going to continue to push back on non-caching uses of server push in HTTP/2; our charter explicitly tells us to be semantically backwards-compatible with HTTP/1, and that means no new semantics. The only way to fit server push into HTTP's existing semantics is to consider it a cache update. In other words, if you overload server push to mean "async message" and use a new client API to get them, that's not a HTTP API. It'd also necessitate figuring out how to distinguish those updates from pushes that *are* intended for the cache. OTOH it should be possible to layer async messaging over caching in a way that takes advantage of server push, somewhat like COMET does. I've started to sketch out one mechanism that would contribute to that here: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-patch-status-00#appendix-A Cheers, On 20 Mar 2014, at 4:30 am, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > On 19 March 2014 09:56, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org> wrote: >> This is an unfortunate part of having perhaps too (current?) browser-centric >> a view in some of our discussions. > > I don't think that it's that at all. I know that browsers and browser > use cases dominate the discussion often, but I believe that this > decision was made for another reason. > > The reason, as I understand it, relates to the ability of a client to > act upon a response when it is received. If you push a response that > is not expected and it's not cacheable, then - absent some sort of > eventing API - it has to be discarded. This is more a symptom of > wanting to minimize the delta for using applications, and a concern > that we don't completely understand all the implications of a choice > to allow non-cacheable responses. Once we have eventing APIs, then > perhaps we can lift the restriction, but it's harder to remove > functionality if we made a mistake. > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 20 March 2014 00:52:06 UTC