Hi. Am 17.10.2018 um 16:13 schrieb Roberto De Ioris: > >> Hello guys, >> >> I would like to initiate again discussion about supporting HTTP2 router as >> SPDY cannot be used and HTTP2 is missing. I guess there was previously >> some >> talk about this, but I think there was lack of interest. >> >> If there will be more interest > we were thinking, we could ask developers >> to restart work on this and if we could also try to make some funding >> project for this. >> >> Reason, why we want this is that having NGINX makes our stack more >> complicated and I really do not like that for each feature I need another >> service. >> >> Also this could make uWSGI more interesting option again and make it more >> promising for users. >> >> -- >> Regards, >> >> Zdenek >> Web: www.pripravto.cz >> _______________________________________________ >> > > Hi, yes the SPDY code is basically useless (note to me and Riccardo: time > to remove it ;), and i constantly underestimate how many users runs the > http/fast routers. HTTP/2 (albeit based on SPDY) is pretty different, and > implementing it in a solid way would require lot of manpower. If some > company want to sponsor its development (like Lincoln Loop with the > pyuwsgi stuff) can drop a mail to i...@unbit.it.
As I followed the nginx H2 implementation and follow the haproxy H2 implementation I can fully agree that this isn't a easy task. Even the h2 implementation of the two popular servers there are still some bugs based on client behavior. Maybe it helps to learn from the current implementations for the own implementation. http://git.haproxy.org/?p=haproxy.git;a=blob;f=src/h2.c;hb=HEAD http://hg.nginx.org/nginx/file/tip/src/http/v2 There is also a "new" player in the h2 game called h2o https://h2o.examp1e.net/ https://github.com/h2o/h2o/tree/master/lib/http2 As I plan to move to uwsgi for php to get rid of php-fpm I would also prefer that uwsgi have the HTTP2 feature. @Roberto: Do you have any Idea about time and money to add this feature in the uwsgi? > Just as a side note, all of the new features (or massive refactoring) of > the uWSGI code in the last 3 years have been sponsored by various > companies while Unbit simply manages commercial support. This is why the > release cycle slowed down. > > Personally my focus now (with now > 1 year :) is on asyncio (it is not a > mistery i have never been a fan of the WSGI standard), but i am still not > sure a cooperation with asyncio and uWSGI can be made without heavily > refactoring uWSGI itself. > > Thanks Best regards Aleks _______________________________________________ uWSGI mailing list uWSGI@lists.unbit.it http://lists.unbit.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uwsgi
