News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations). Parent comment

Re:HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations) by rrmm on Monday January 27, 2014 @07:11AM (#7129922)
The complexity is not horrible as far as communications protocols go.

Anyone know what working implementations exist currently?

Ideally, it'd be nice to see actual real world data showing the benefits over http 1.1.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations) by stephen_g on Monday January 27, 2014 @09:12AM (#7130330)
There's a C++ implementation here, but I'm not sure how complete it is: https://github.com/http2d/core

I think nginx and Chrome support SPDY which HTTP 2.0 was based on, so that performance should be able to be tested and be fairly representative of what we can expect.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations) by jimktrains2 on Monday January 27, 2014 @11:13AM (#7131062)
But that's the thing...it's _not_ a communication's protocol. It's a transfer protocol...
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations) by ll_cool_james on Tuesday January 28, 2014 @01:44AM (#7135724)
To-may-to, to-mah-to..
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations) by jimktrains2 on Tuesday January 28, 2014 @12:47PM (#7138487)
No, because a communication protocol has to handle all the types of problems HTTP and TCP solve. A transfer protocol is concerned with moving data and meta data, not the problems TCP solves.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations) by wmf on Monday January 27, 2014 @02:35PM (#7132581)
https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/wiki/Implementations
[ Parent | on HN ]