Re: Mercure, Braid, Prep... analysis and proposals concerning Internet-Drafts about subscribing to resource updates via HTTP

Hello Kévin,

that's an interesting comparison of the different proposals/approaches for
solving resource updates. Thanks for sharing it. Your article briefly
touches on the topic of using multipart responses for updates, but it seems
as if that approach is dismissed:

Reusing multipart also has the advantage of solving the streaming problem
> (no need to calculate message size before sending), but seems a bit of a
> fiddle, and is less “elegant”/idiomatic than the solution proposed by Braid.
>

Could you elaborate on why multipart is not suitable for delivering
resource updates? It seems to be a very practical approach since (probably)
all clients, servers, and proxies support multipart responses. Thus there
is no need for major changes in the HTTP implementations. Furthermore,
multipart appears to be a semantically correct for combining multiple
updates into a single message body. So I cannot follow your argumentation
here entirely.

Best regards
Marius

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 6:03 PM Kévin Dunglas <kevin@dunglas.fr> wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> With the help of Michael Toomim (author of Braid) and Rahul Gupta (author
> of PREP), I've just published a blog post following the IETF 118
> discussions about resource updates via HTTP:
> https://dunglas.dev/2023/11/mercure-braid-prep-news-about-subscribing-to-http-resource-updates/
>
> I'm curious to get your feedback on the approach proposed.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Kévin Dunglas
>