IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] Extensibility mechanisms?

Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> Mon, 19 April 2010 08:50 UTC

Return-Path: <ian@hixie.ch>
X-Original-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B13F3A693B for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 01:50:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.995
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.995 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.604, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uR7WA9-5mTuC for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 01:50:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from looneymail-a2.g.dreamhost.com (caibbdcaaaaf.dreamhost.com [208.113.200.5]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13DAF3A694C for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 01:48:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ps20323.dreamhostps.com (ps20323.dreamhost.com [69.163.222.251]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by looneymail-a2.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2A9816D42B; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 01:48:50 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 08:48:50 +0000
From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <4BCC111C.90707@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1004190837570.23507@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
References: <h2w5c902b9e1004152345j992b815bz5f8d38f06a19181a@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1004160701250.751@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <4BC860FD.8080007@webtide.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1004161952530.751@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <4BC96A0D.4080904@webtide.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1004180246380.751@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <4BCAB2C1.2000404@webtide.com> <B9DC25B0-CD21-44E7-BD9B-06D0C9440933@apple.com> <4BCB7829.9010204@caucho.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1004182349240.751@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <4BCC0A07.9030003@gmx.de> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1004190753510.23507@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <4BCC111C.90707@gmx.de>
Content-Language: en-GB-hixie
Content-Style-Type: text/css
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Cc: Hybi <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Extensibility mechanisms?
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi>
List-Post: <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 08:50:06 -0000

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 19.04.2010 10:04, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes. What does that have to do with the protocol, btw?
> > 
> > A simple protocol is far more likely to end up with more 
> > implementations and thus a far more heterogeneous environment.
> 
> There are many many implementations of HTTP. Some fast, some not so. 
> Some complete, some not so.

I think we can get orders of magnitude more complete implementations of 
Web Sockets than of HTTP if we keep the protocol trivial.


> The main reason we see two server implementations rule the market isn't 
> necessarily because of protocol complexity, but because one of them 
> ships with a popular server platform, and the other one is free and 
> "good enough" for almost everything.

That is one possibility. I do not personally think it is the real reason. 
Unfortunately, I don't know of any way to test these hypotheses.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email