Re: Experiences with HTTP/2 server push

Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> Fri, 05 August 2016 21:10 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1463912D5D1 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 14:10:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.208
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.208 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dRCEW-PDtqKz for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 14:10:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98BD312D516 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 14:10:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1bVmJQ-0004eS-9a for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 05 Aug 2016 21:05:48 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2016 21:05:48 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1bVmJQ-0004eS-9a@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1bVmJK-0004dh-Gv for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 05 Aug 2016 21:05:42 +0000
Received: from [121.99.228.82] (helo=treenet.co.nz) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1bVmJH-0003G8-VI for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 05 Aug 2016 21:05:41 +0000
Received: from [192.168.20.251] (unknown [121.98.40.111]) by treenet.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id C14C3E6EA8 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sat, 6 Aug 2016 09:05:06 +1200 (NZST)
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <CACZw55mUg_VjN3Q6TqPCb6udo3mQpoWQVNV5e2iYiNj=hC-2kw@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnX=6ZjnFJsh-07SDt+LMprsJ9w7tgSjaeaMKeEgihsD4g@mail.gmail.com> <CA+3+x5FpRGm9XQz2PdvFs6Kfiz3eMH1QLJ0fAeaeqQOSF2c9sw@mail.gmail.com> <CAAMqGzbwaFiMXy6r+r2avvv+ESG+sN0MK5FLdNZ8tB2xb=r3uA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Message-ID: <ab69c37e-2a55-ba03-ca35-ebbb9df946b6@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2016 09:04:50 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAMqGzbwaFiMXy6r+r2avvv+ESG+sN0MK5FLdNZ8tB2xb=r3uA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=121.99.228.82; envelope-from=squid3@treenet.co.nz; helo=treenet.co.nz
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.247, BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1bVmJH-0003G8-VI 3b7e539dd30987389da1b1eebc0f36f4
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Experiences with HTTP/2 server push
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/ab69c37e-2a55-ba03-ca35-ebbb9df946b6@treenet.co.nz>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32199
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 6/08/2016 7:07 a.m., Alcides Viamontes E wrote:
> 
> Looked that way, HTTP/2 Push is a big deal for web components. And it is
> not far fetched, we are planning to release these features for ShimmerCat
> 1.7. The only thing we require from browser  is that they check if there is
> a push promise for a resource strictly -- but as late as possible -- before
> starting a fetch.
> 
> The same can be done with hierarchies of scripts, although we will have to
> wait a bit for people to stop making big .js blobs....
> 

Any particular reason to wait?

Implementing it early allows demonstration that its faster not to use
blobs. Without that visible reason to change its unlikely that blobs
will disappear.

Amos