On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 3, 2015, at 11:09 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > > > > What would *you* like to see as new features or enhancements > > w/ mod_proxy, esp reverse proxy. > > > > HTTP/2 support, of course :) It will be interesting to be able to > leverage > > and compare a mod_proxy_serf vs a mod_proxy_http2 (nghttp2-based) > > engine, as mentioned in another thread - multiple implementations > > are always good for ferreting out protocol anomalies. > > > > It's kind of funny... the "need" for http/2 between proxy and > origin seems pretty non-existant. There is a blog post by Cloudflare > somewhere about how they don't see servers talking http/2 to the > backend as anywhere near a driver, since all the things that make > it "important" (koff koff!) between browser and server don't really > apply. > AIUI the reason for http/2 to ignore the OSI Network definition was that they knew better, and there is a demand for concurrent requests and responses. It seems that fits the fat-pipe of 400 concurrent requests between a gateway and backend app server more than the few pipes needed between a web browser and the gateway. /shrug :) > Even so, I do think that re-looking into leveraging serf might > be useful, even if for other reasons. > I'd agree, either as the h2, h2c or http/1.1 provider.
