On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Daniel Farina <dan...@heroku.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:55 PM, Dobes Vandermeer <dob...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Virtual hosts. Same port.>> I think SPDY or like-protocols [...] give a > crisp treatment to > >> interactive, stateful workloads involving > >> > >> back-and-forth between client and server with multiplexing, fixing > >> some problems with the hacks in HTTP-land from before. > > > > It sounds like at some level you're really talking about replacing the > > built-in protocol with SPDY because SPDY is possibly a better baseline > than > > updating the existing protocol. That's an interesting idea, I think this > > project could evolve in that direction if there's demand for it. > > If only so there is a smaller set of arbitrary decisions to make about > how to delimit messages...but if SPDY doesn't get widely deployed, or > exacts an unacceptable performance penalty, it is game over. > Well, in our case HTTP is a clear win (but not replacement) and SPDY a potential one (even as a replacement). Even if SPDY is not widely adopted it could still replace FEBE if there's a clear advantage to using it, I don't know enough to make the call right now.
