On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:58:02 +0100, Karsten Elfenbein <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I still don't seen any real advantage of spdy over http/1.1 with > pipelining. > > Maybe the issues with pipelining should be addressed first in the > browser to webserver chain. > > The other big issue in relation to haproxy is currently the keepalive > support as only the first header of a connection is used for L7 > inspection. Breaking that up to support keepalive and pipelining > would be a big issue. (one connection could result in different > backends to deliver the content) (SSL/TLS would be nice to have while > we are talking about that :) ) > > Also while translating spdy:// to http:// you would run into issues > with the backend app needs to output spdy:// links on a http:// > request. > > Am Freitag, 20. November 2009 schrieben Sie: > > I am not sure if people are aware of a proposed new protocol for > > web from google called SPDY. > > I think "advantage" is, as this is "new" protocol, not new version of old protocol, apps either will support it or not, u dont have problem that some apps will say "hey, let's implemetent some parts so it will look like we use new version but completely ignore other parts"
-- Mariusz Gronczewski (XANi) <[email protected]> GnuPG: 0xEA8ACE64 http://devrandom.pl
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
