"Linda A. Walsh" schreef:
Enough to verify what I am saying, usually, but I have expert
knowledge in almost no field that I know of.
Doesn't matter. All that matters is where you want to go and what you
need for that.
I have this feeling that I like SPDY better than HTTP2? Anyone agree?
Xen wrote:
Thanks for mentioning it here, I didn't even know about it, like you.
And of course you study it really well before commenting.
---
Enough to verify what I am saying, usually, but I have expert
knowledge in almost no field that I know of. I do have
fundamentals that help me build u
Linda, Linda Walsh everywhere :p.
I only trashed your message. I love to trash Linda Walsh :P :P.
Okay, pointless message.
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015, Linda A. Walsh wrote:
The protocol usage in the 2nd case used 'http2' -- which started me
wondering what the heck that was...so googled around and
On 12/10/2015 11:31 a.m., Linda A. Walsh wrote:
>
> I was looking at some traffic differences between one of
> my browsers going through squid and going direct (via masquerade).
>
> The protocol usage in the 2nd case used 'http2' -- which started me
> wondering what the heck that was...so googled
Em 11/10/15 19:31, Linda A. Walsh escreveu:
Are the impacts or implementation details
being thought about in squid?, since if it comes
down to it only being supported by encrypted
TUNNELS, its not only going to be hard to cache,
but also makes it a pain to implement http/browsing
controls on con
I was looking at some traffic differences between one of
my browsers going through squid and going direct (via masquerade).
The protocol usage in the 2nd case used 'http2' -- which started me
wondering what the heck that was...so googled around and
found it is an optimized http/1.1 mostly mea
