Re: If not JSON, what then ?

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

Unfortunately, implementation of the Connection header was really, really bad. :-/


> On 2 Aug 2016, at 2:55 PM, Willy Tarreau <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 02:41:19PM +0200, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> Not stupid at all, but I am concerned about adding too much "magic"; if
>> implementations are doing too much on your behalf, issues will arise (see
>> above).
> 
> You probably know that I hate magic as well, that's why I prefer to rely
> on what we have. For example, passing "connection:" with the new headers
> to optimize their eviction along non-compatible paths is doable. It's not
> 100% safe but doable. Ensuring that compatible actors replace the old
> version is doable as well because it would be a "MUST" in the spec and we
> know these actors don't exist yet. So all in all we can possibly do useful
> things. I just don't want to have a tens of headers being advertised in
> Connection nor having to add many extra headers for the sake of saving
> space and parsing time, because we know that it will add extra work that
> may sometimes offset the savings. Hence the idea to compact what can be
> compacted if we went down that route.
> 
> Cheers,
> Willy

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/