IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] Extensibility mechanisms?

Pieter Hintjens <ph@imatix.com> Mon, 19 April 2010 09:41 UTC

Return-Path: <pieterh@gmail.com>
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 8DFBE3A6970 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 02:41:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.247
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.247 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.130, BAYES_20=-0.74, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
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 LOAR7AIoECQG for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 02:41:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pv0-f172.google.com (mail-pv0-f172.google.com [74.125.83.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF9C93A68D9 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 02:41:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pvf33 with SMTP id 33so2895258pvf.31 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 02:41:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:x-google-sender-auth:received:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=SUUa4cCG13MBWoOIJ0qzCex48znu9L0SLPTLO+lEHxk=; b=hBJiPucYUn5f9eyytEsnjPDVxpFA/ZNQ2rUau+knGvTSfspTvMYxFwcjdsKx3y217S TwVHtv1ik0JQZpVtoZTywMHZIgsth5TANLBt03uuFVacRynCG5e6B3mKHAVc3z+R2ptU KEJcmr5ny4QZUJvkPUohl/f3fqCOhlbg4ILNs=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; b=M/cUUZOyyW4XyTr3bQzoI4z/Gp/DMeXz5yZ8hW0JnZbfHgK2dRbc94lLz6NJW3UeEH TX0TfjqOGvl58NKsgvAe2VBnze+Q5jZoMOFK5PMQbuQ+1a3iqP68rMo8Xty4AitLiq3y RttjAgRrCVwzTmwn7ZcfTkrsc8D7DwOKb87qQ=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: pieterh@gmail.com
Received: by 10.140.225.18 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 02:41:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1004190753510.23507@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
References: <h2w5c902b9e1004152345j992b815bz5f8d38f06a19181a@mail.gmail.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>
From: Pieter Hintjens <ph@imatix.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 11:41:03 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 14ffa7413155b67e
Received: by 10.140.251.20 with SMTP id y20mr1099494rvh.206.1271670083121; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 02:41:23 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <l2m5821ea241004190241t556b318ar7b601466c05b319d@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
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 09:41:34 -0000

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

> A simple protocol is far more likely to end up with more implementations
> and thus a far more heterogeneous environment.

You are IMO absolutely wrong in your assertion that HTTP's complexity
is the cause of market domination by a few products.

Have you actually implemented HTTP?  It is trivial to implement.  The
difficulty is not HTTP but writing a stable scalable server that can
handle all the diversity of use the real world demands.  You cannot
brush this under a select(3) carpet.

The web server market is based around a few dominant application
stacks.  Will these disappear with WebSocket?  You have an alternative
to mod_php?  To .NET?  What's your proposal to those who want to
connect that websocket to a database?  The web community has built
several mature answers to that question and those answers dominate the
market.

You are absolutely on the wrong track if you believe that a "simpler
protocol" will somehow be more successful.  Especially if you do not
understand the reasons for HTTP's success, and try to focus debate on
non-existent weaknesses.

-Pieter

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email