Re:Why JWTs Suck as Session Tokens (2017)
by RobAtticus on Thursday August 30, 2018 @12:23PM
(#17877964)
The article mentions 100k page views being ~24MB extra a month, which means we are talking about a token of ~240 bytes. So for a single user you are talking about several kilobytes if they are multiple views to the server, which is now several orders of magnitude less than your original estimate.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Why JWTs Suck as Session Tokens (2017)
by Mister_Snuggles on Thursday August 30, 2018 @04:17PM
(#17880340)
For this single thing, this is not a big deal at all.
I was objecting to the "It's 2018 and you're complaining about a few MB of bandwidth and a few seconds of CPU time?" statement, not the technical detail of JWT adding an extra ~240 bytes.
I've seen statements similar to this applied to everything from big JavaScript libraries to large "Hero Images" to 2MB GIFs embedded in pages. It's a poor argument and it's representative of an attitude that's hostile to users.
Re:Why JWTs Suck as Session Tokens (2017)
by RobAtticus on Friday August 31, 2018 @08:28AM
(#17884931)
The problem is you are talking about a different problem than the OP. The OP was talking about a few MB and CPU _from the server's perspective_, while you are talking about a few MB and CPU _from the client's perspective_. Yes it would be bad to willy-nilly force clients to take on a few MB per request, but that's not the issue being talked about.