- From: Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 22:11:26 -0500
- To: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
- Cc: David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com>, "William Chan (???)" <willchan@chromium.org>, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Jul 8, 2014, at 10:01 PM, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote: >> It adds state to the framing layer, but that’s not a layering violation. Using consecutive binary-format frames to express a single semantic frame, depending on the END_HEADERS flag, is a layering violation. > > I agree, which is one reason I don't like the "emit reference set at > header block fragment with END_HEADERS" rule currently in the spec. > >> Dynamic changes are unlikely to happen in practice; perhaps that should be disallowed. > > I fear the they will happen frequently in practice, requiring dynamic > changes to the frame encoder/decoder. In practice they will likely be > driven by what is seen at the HTTP layer (large uploads/downloads, > file-transfer, etc). Hey Jeff, How is this different to you from dynamically adjusting the header table size? -- Jason T. Greene WildFly Lead / JBoss EAP Platform Architect JBoss, a division of Red Hat
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2014 03:12:03 UTC