- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 00:23:41 -0700
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Maciej Stachowiak<mjs at apple.com> wrote: > > Hi Greg, > > On Aug 7, 2009, at 10:07 PM, Greg Wilkins wrote: > >> >> Again this is valuable feedback. >> >> That's three -0' or -1's on the look-a-like-HTTP approach. >> >> I'll ponder what sort of simplifications could be made >> if the HTTP style is dropped. > > I'm not sure the HTTP-style framing is necessarily a minus, it's just not > much of a plus. I think the complexity cost is from the number of features > added. I think a possible fruitful approach might be: > > - Review what features BWTP adds. > - Pare down to just the most essential ones that provide a lot of benefit at > the protocol level relative to doing them at the application level. > - Leave enough extensibility that other useful protocol-level features can > be added in a future version. > > I'm concerned about the 1.0 version of the protocol, whatever it may be, > being too complex. The downsides of complexity are: (a) longer > time-to-market for the core functionality; (b) likely worse interoperability > in the initial implementations; (c) more risk of security bugs. On the other > hand, I would also be concerned about deploying something that didn't have > an elegant path to future extension. I'd also add that not deploying something in the initial version does run some risk that implementations won't properly support extensions once they are added. A good example of this is HTTP pipelineing which we've had a ton of problems deploying because implementations don't follow the spec. / Jonas
Received on Saturday, 8 August 2009 00:23:41 UTC