Well, if central supported h2 push, that would be a benefit! E.g. request shiro-web.jar and all the other dependencies would be pushed: shiro-core.jar/.pom etc.
Maven would need to figure out which one it needed, so it doesn't redownload existing artifacts. So, no (or only marginal) gain without h2 server push. There may be other interesting mechanisms, but from what I've heard, push is the most beneficial. And that's what I observed so far. On Thu, 5 Nov 2020, 19:49 Bernd Eckenfels, <e...@zusammenkunft.net> wrote: > Hello, > > I don’t really see where http/2 should have a speed performance compared > to http/1.1 as long as both use keepalive. For larger artifacts even the > header reduction should be negectible. Having said that, it is of course a > good idea to go with the new protocols, but I would not expect much > advantage. Especially not if you limit yourself to one or two tcp > connections per repository. > > Gruss > Bernd > -- > http://bernd.eckenfels.net > ________________________________ > Von: Jakub Bartecek <jbart...@redhat.com> > Gesendet: Thursday, November 5, 2020 6:28:05 PM > An: Maven Users List <users@maven.apache.org> > Betreff: Re: HTTP/2 support in Maven > > Hi, > I'll look at it tomorrow and try to verify it really downloads the whole > content, I did some checks on POM files and it really downloaded it. > > Thanks for testing it from your machine. It's interesting to see that you > have completely different results. Honestly I'm not sure how that is > possible, but I'll think about it more tomorrow. I'm about to call it a day > now. > > Kuba > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 6:10 PM Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net> > wrote: > > > (short disclaimer: am not a python speaking person, so the change I did > > above with intent to "consume response body, the artifact bytes" may not > > did what I wanted :D) > > >
