On Jul 10, 2014, at 8:05 PM, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote: > > On 11 July 2014 09:40, Nicholas Hurley <hurley@todesschaf.org> 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. You could remove CONTINUATION and then make everything else an extension, but then anything not using the extension can't send large headers nor decrease the frame size (which was mentioned as something someone might want to do). I argue that the spec is just simpler and easier to follow if it's all together. > > regards > > > > > > -- > Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> > http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales > http://www.webtide.com advice and support for jetty and cometd.
Received on Friday, 11 July 2014 02:20:35 UTC