Re: Straw Poll: Restore Header Table and Static Table Indices

[Willy Tarreau <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 06:20:00PM +1300, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 15/10/2014 6:11 p.m., Adrian Cole wrote:
> >> If an argument can be made that 2 byte encodings are still too
> >> large for dynamic headers, then instead of flipping back let's
> >> investigate how the 1 byte slots can be shared between static and
> >> dynamic.
> > FWIW, I'm happy to implement an alternate approach, if one comes
> > out. Thanks, Greg.
> > 
> 
> Alternative approach has already been proposed. That the first bit of
> the index is used as a flag to indicate static or dynamic table for
> the remaning 7+ bits.
> 
> That not only puts both on an even bias, but expands the range of
> values getting 1-byte encodings in either table and removes the need
> for the math complexity people are disliking.
> 
> 1 stone, 3 birds.

I totally agree with this except that I don't see where you take that
spare bit from, that's what initially led me to rethink the encoding.
So if you konw where to find one bit, +1 for me obviously!

> (The paranoid in me can only think that it is being repeatedly
> rejected despite evidence of its usefulness because of who proposed it.)

No need to be paranoid here, the most common reason is that it's hard to
explain our thoughts and most of the time it ends up with each other
understanding something different and either useless or scary. Noone's
to blame for this, human languages are not appropriate for discussing
bits and bytes.

Thanks,
Willy