Re: #537: Remove segments (consensus call)

I'm a bit behind, can you tell me what you mean by "semantic-free" HEADERS?
It the current stance for extensions (such as WebSocket) "Do not abuse HTTP
related frames. Instead, define and use extension-specific frames"?




On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote:

>
> On 16 July 2014 09:46, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You can try to start h2 and then upgrade to websockets if the ALPN
>> negotiation selects http1.1.
>>
>
> Currently this kind if decision is made above the browser in javascript
> libraries that have to decide if they are going to use websocket or long
> polling.  If they use long polling, for h1 they have to be aware of
> connection limits and currently some assume 2, while others have been
> updated to 6.  A much higher connection==stream limit will need to be
> applied if long polling over h2.     But these frameworks don't have the
> ability to take part in h2/upgrade negotiations and any knowledge they get
> about protocol versions will be late.  They probably don't have access to
> max stream settings, so will be guessing again.
>
> Now if h2 had supported websocket semantics from day 1, then these
> libraries could have just handed over the messages to the browser and it
> would be up to the browser to work out the best way to transport.
>
> Anyway.... I've made my point (several times) that I think it was a
> mistake for the charter to not support all the current web semantics.  I
> guess that horse bolted a long time ago.
>
> cheers
>
>
>
> --
> 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.
>