Re: #540: "jumbo" frames

On 11 July 2014 09:40, Nicholas Hurley <> wrote:

> I see no convincing technical reasons in that list to make it a built-in
> part of the protocol. It reads to me more like a list of "this would be
> nice", which sounds just perfect for an extension.

Making it an extension does not allow CONTINUATIONS to be removed from the
protocol.   That puts it into other that "this would be nice" category.

You can't remove parts of the protocol in an extension.


Greg Wilkins <> HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales  advice and support for jetty and cometd.

Received on Friday, 11 July 2014 01:06:13 UTC