Re: Header Compression Implementation Feedback

[Amos Jeffries <[e-mail]>]

On 9/07/2013 12:01 p.m., James M Snell wrote:
> Another minor item as I've been going through the implementation:
>
> 4. Right now, the Header Compression scheme assumes two separate
> pre-filled header tables... one for Request headers, the other for
> response headers. The challenge with this is that it does not account
> for the use of Request Headers within PUSH_PROMISE frames. This is
> minor right now, but it means that PUSH_PROMISE frames will not have
> optimum compression because the request headers will need to be added
> as Literal representations with Indexing. It would be better if we
> just had ONE prefilled table (it would make implementation generally
> easier as well)

+1.

Amos