Re: Is a faithful HTTP/2 response scheduler necessarily O(n) in the worst case?

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Kazu Yamamoto <kazu@iij.ad.jp> wrote:

> Hi Tom,
>
> >> http://www.mew.org/~kazu/material/2015-http2-priority2.pdf
> >> http://www.mew.org/~kazu/doc/paper/http2-haskell-2016.pdf
> >
> > Thanks. IIUC, the algorithms described in both links are still at least
> > O(depth), which can be O(n) for dependency trees generated by certain
> > clients such as Chrome.
>
> Yes. Your understanding is correct.
>
> If a browser creates a list-like tree, I think it is misuse of priority.
> And servers should limit the depth of trees.


Why is that a misuse of priority? It seems entirely reasonable for a client
to specify a mostly-linear order. There is a very good reason for this:
inside HTML pages, CSS links and synchronous scripts must be evaluated in
the order they appear in the HTML file. This implies that the server should
send those resources in a linear order. This is exactly the rationale
behind Chrome using mostly-linear orders. (This is not to say that
mostly-linear orders are not occasionally problematic -- they are
<https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=651538#c1> -- but
there are good reasons to linear orders at least some of the time.)

(sorry for the duplicate message, replied from the wrong address)