11 ms·

Regarding 1, do you mean that the server would send the response before the request has been received completely? Or is the response for a different request?

by pfyra 3y ago

orbz 3y ago
Probably for HTTP Pipelining: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_pipelining https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_pipelining
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
  HTTP/1.1 pipelining is not the same as HTTP/2 multiplexing. Obviously, one cannot multiplex with HTTP/1.1, but AFAIK there is still a question of whether someone can pipeline (not multiplex) with HTTP/2. HTTP/2, introduced by an advertising company and developed in part by CDN service providers, is designed for web pages that auto-load resources from a variety of hosts, namely advertising servers. It's commercially-focused. Here is an old example of using HTTP/1.1 pipelining. For the basic task of fetching many files from same host over a single TCP connection. https://www.daemonology.net/phttpget/ https://www.daemonology.net/phttpget/ Of course there is much more than one can do with HTTP/1.1 pipelining, such as fetching 100s or 1000s or pages, as "streaming" text/html, from a website in a single TCP connection. It is also possible to HTTP/1.1 pipeline POST requests. IME, HTTP/1.1 pipelining is generally fast and reliable, a very useful and convenient feature for web users, one that I have been using for two decades. HTTP/2 proponents on HN will sometimes insist that HTTP/1.1 pipelining is entirely supplanted by HTTP/2 multiplexing, ignoring that the web can also be used for non-commercial, non-advertising purposes. They will argue that HTTP/1.1 pipelining is useless because it is not supported by web browsers and cannot support improved e-commerce accompanied by online advertising, data collection and tracking, e.g., websites comprised of resources from a variety of hosts, especially advertisers. This is a mistake. HTTP/1.1 pipelining and HTTP/2 multiplexing are two different things and they can and they will co-exist. The web is not just for Google and other so-called "tech" companies. Nor is it only for their chosen HTTP clients, "Chrome" and what not. The web is not just for commerce. It is for non-commercial web users, too. It's open to all HTTP clients, including this one from Zig. The web is a public resource.
  - jrockway 3y ago
    Why is HTTP/2 corporate? Why use HTTP if interoperability with browsers isn't a concern?
    - akkartik 3y ago
      HTTP/1.1 is supported by all browsers, right? Using it doesn't give up any interop. At least until said ad company develops enough of a monopoly to move into the Extinguish phase. I don't know anything about pipelining or multiplexing, but I too have the impression standards bodies are now dominated by large browser vendors. Older standards therefore seem less corporate.
      - 1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
        "Using it doesn't give up any interop." And interop is quite valuable for web users. But for the so-called "tech" companies and CDN service providers authoring the HTTP/2 RFCs, maybe not so much. Who receives the primary benefit of HTTP/2. Certainly not web users. Perhaps they get some small secondary benefits. What does not make any sense to me is why past/present Googlers and other HTTP/2 proponents voting and replying on HN are offended by someone who likes using HTTP/1.1. For pipelining. The (non-browser) interop is much better than HTTP/2. That is, using 1.1, I can pipeline HTTP to/from almost every httpd on the internet, using a vast array of TCP clients written over a long period. If I want to use HTTP/2/, the number of libraries and clients is much smaller and all are recent. Further, AFAIK these clients cannot pipeline the way 1.1 does, retrieving many files from same host sequentially over single TCP connection, in the order they were requested, with HTTP headers. Google existed when RFC2616 came out. If it is so flawed then why not try to change it then. HTTP/2 is flawed for what Google and other so-called "tech" companies want to do, always with a browser or mobile OS they control, not necessarily what web users want to do, with whatever clients web users choose, 100% of the time. We've seen the stuff so-called "tech" companies get up to and it usually involves surveillance to support commerce. HTTP/2 isn't going to solve or alleviate any of those ills. To keep the Wall Street analysts happy, Google will not be adding to their browser, inspiring and backing standards that translate to less profit for Google. If a new standard decreases the amount of data collection or tracking, that's less profit for Google. HTTP/2 is not such a standard.

Regarding 1, do you mean that the server would send the response before the request has been received completely? Or is the response for a different request?

by pfyra 3y ago

Regarding 1, do you mean that the server would send the response before the request has been received completely? Or is the response for a different request?

orbz 3y ago

Probably for HTTP Pipelining: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_pipelining https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_pipelining

1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
HTTP/1.1 pipelining is not the same as HTTP/2 multiplexing. Obviously, one cannot multiplex with HTTP/1.1, but AFAIK there is still a question of whether someone can pipeline (not multiplex) with HTTP/2. HTTP/2, introduced by an advertising company and developed in part by CDN service providers, is designed for web pages that auto-load resources from a variety of hosts, namely advertising servers. It's commercially-focused. Here is an old example of using HTTP/1.1 pipelining. For the basic task of fetching many files from same host over a single TCP connection. https://www.daemonology.net/phttpget/ https://www.daemonology.net/phttpget/ Of course there is much more than one can do with HTTP/1.1 pipelining, such as fetching 100s or 1000s or pages, as "streaming" text/html, from a website in a single TCP connection. It is also possible to HTTP/1.1 pipeline POST requests. IME, HTTP/1.1 pipelining is generally fast and reliable, a very useful and convenient feature for web users, one that I have been using for two decades. HTTP/2 proponents on HN will sometimes insist that HTTP/1.1 pipelining is entirely supplanted by HTTP/2 multiplexing, ignoring that the web can also be used for non-commercial, non-advertising purposes. They will argue that HTTP/1.1 pipelining is useless because it is not supported by web browsers and cannot support improved e-commerce accompanied by online advertising, data collection and tracking, e.g., websites comprised of resources from a variety of hosts, especially advertisers. This is a mistake. HTTP/1.1 pipelining and HTTP/2 multiplexing are two different things and they can and they will co-exist. The web is not just for Google and other so-called "tech" companies. Nor is it only for their chosen HTTP clients, "Chrome" and what not. The web is not just for commerce. It is for non-commercial web users, too. It's open to all HTTP clients, including this one from Zig. The web is a public resource.
- jrockway 3y ago
  Why is HTTP/2 corporate? Why use HTTP if interoperability with browsers isn't a concern?
  - akkartik 3y ago
    HTTP/1.1 is supported by all browsers, right? Using it doesn't give up any interop. At least until said ad company develops enough of a monopoly to move into the Extinguish phase. I don't know anything about pipelining or multiplexing, but I too have the impression standards bodies are now dominated by large browser vendors. Older standards therefore seem less corporate.
    - 1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
      "Using it doesn't give up any interop." And interop is quite valuable for web users. But for the so-called "tech" companies and CDN service providers authoring the HTTP/2 RFCs, maybe not so much. Who receives the primary benefit of HTTP/2. Certainly not web users. Perhaps they get some small secondary benefits. What does not make any sense to me is why past/present Googlers and other HTTP/2 proponents voting and replying on HN are offended by someone who likes using HTTP/1.1. For pipelining. The (non-browser) interop is much better than HTTP/2. That is, using 1.1, I can pipeline HTTP to/from almost every httpd on the internet, using a vast array of TCP clients written over a long period. If I want to use HTTP/2/, the number of libraries and clients is much smaller and all are recent. Further, AFAIK these clients cannot pipeline the way 1.1 does, retrieving many files from same host sequentially over single TCP connection, in the order they were requested, with HTTP headers. Google existed when RFC2616 came out. If it is so flawed then why not try to change it then. HTTP/2 is flawed for what Google and other so-called "tech" companies want to do, always with a browser or mobile OS they control, not necessarily what web users want to do, with whatever clients web users choose, 100% of the time. We've seen the stuff so-called "tech" companies get up to and it usually involves surveillance to support commerce. HTTP/2 isn't going to solve or alleviate any of those ills. To keep the Wall Street analysts happy, Google will not be adding to their browser, inspiring and backing standards that translate to less profit for Google. If a new standard decreases the amount of data collection or tracking, that's less profit for Google. HTTP/2 is not such a standard.