- From: Wenbo Zhu <wenboz@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 11:42:45 -0800
- To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAD3-0rPxTdPOeNXsVZX639s2UOgOQoPcQKf27qaExt14znfL=Q@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote: > > On 15 January 2015 at 20:23, Wenbo Zhu <wenboz@google.com> wrote: > >> Wouldn't you need an open (i.e. pre-opened) websocket stream to do this? >> IMO, spontaneous server-push (i.e. without a client-initiated stream) is a >> unique feature of PP, which is orthogonal to the problem of streaming data >> from the server to client. > > > Wenbo, > > I'm not saying that PP is not needed. It looks well designed for purpose > and that is pushing associated resources to a HTTP request. PP is one of > the key features in HTTP2 that make it worthwhile deploying now despite all > it's warts. > > What I don't think it is good for is replacing long polling as a way of > providing a server to client messaging transport. > Agreed. Also note that long-polling is not necessarily the most efficient way for providing server to client messaging, i.e. the RTT overhead is a problem of long-polling, not HTTP/2. > That is what websockets has been designed for and we should look to how > websockets can be well carried over HTTP2 rather than how we can trick HTTP > Push into being a messaging transport for non HTTP messages. > > cheers > > > > -- > Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> @ Webtide - *an Intalio subsidiary* > 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 Thursday, 15 January 2015 19:43:12 UTC