7 ms·

By what definition is HTTP/2 considered obsolete? Are you suggesting it's been supplanted by H3? (FWIW I agree w/ your objection to the "httpx2" name.)

jenders 19d ago
Yep. All HTTP/2 features are subsumed by HTTP/3 and all HTTP/2 deployments should be focusing their effort on moving to HTTP/3. HTTP/2 is full of growing pains and fiddly kernel config for it to perform better than even HTTP/1.1. Moving these dependencies into userland was the path that HTTP/3 took and it has proven itself through CDN and browser adoption for years now. I’d go as far as to say that we need to reevaluate the event loops in nginx and elsewhere to assume UDP and HTTP/3 framing instead of TCP. There are gains to be had.
- chrisweekly 19d ago
  Hmm, I'd define that as "deprecated", not "obsolete". Many extant H2 deployments are stable and performant, and if they're eg fronted by an H3 CDN, the migration ROI might be questionable. /$.02
  - jenders 18d ago
    Context: spent my career building CDNs at Cloudflare/facebook/pinterest. The h3 juice is worth the squeeze. 0rtt TLS, BBR, HPACK, etc. You can roughly achieve this with a carefully configured h2 deployment across multiple layers and packages or just move to h3 and let the app layer handle it all. We baked all of the best practices into h3, the world just needs to move on.
- tcdent 19d ago
  HTTP/3 is fundamentally a different architecture than /2. To fully embrace it requires rethinking backend design significantly; just bumping a version number on HTTP without utilizing the intention of the spec is incorrect. HTTP/1.x is not obsolete. It fills a very relevant request structure that most of the Internet still runs on.
  - jenders 18d ago
    Seems like the major gripe is over my usage of the word “obsolete” instead of “deprecated”. We could all be flipping switches instead of tapping on MacBooks but you gotta draw a line somewhere.
- 7bit 19d ago
  [dead]

jenders 19d ago

Yep. All HTTP/2 features are subsumed by HTTP/3 and all HTTP/2 deployments should be focusing their effort on moving to HTTP/3. HTTP/2 is full of growing pains and fiddly kernel config for it to perform better than even HTTP/1.1. Moving these dependencies into userland was the path that HTTP/3 took and it has proven itself through CDN and browser adoption for years now. I’d go as far as to say that we need to reevaluate the event loops in nginx and elsewhere to assume UDP and HTTP/3 framing instead of TCP. There are gains to be had.

chrisweekly 19d ago
Hmm, I'd define that as "deprecated", not "obsolete". Many extant H2 deployments are stable and performant, and if they're eg fronted by an H3 CDN, the migration ROI might be questionable. /$.02
- jenders 18d ago
  Context: spent my career building CDNs at Cloudflare/facebook/pinterest. The h3 juice is worth the squeeze. 0rtt TLS, BBR, HPACK, etc. You can roughly achieve this with a carefully configured h2 deployment across multiple layers and packages or just move to h3 and let the app layer handle it all. We baked all of the best practices into h3, the world just needs to move on.
tcdent 19d ago
HTTP/3 is fundamentally a different architecture than /2. To fully embrace it requires rethinking backend design significantly; just bumping a version number on HTTP without utilizing the intention of the spec is incorrect. HTTP/1.x is not obsolete. It fills a very relevant request structure that most of the Internet still runs on.
- jenders 18d ago
  Seems like the major gripe is over my usage of the word “obsolete” instead of “deprecated”. We could all be flipping switches instead of tapping on MacBooks but you gotta draw a line somewhere.
7bit 19d ago
[dead]