|
|
|
|
|
by hobohacker
4548 days ago
|
|
To your points about pipelining, there's a reason it doesn't get compared. It's not usable - https://insouciant.org/tech/status-of-http-pipelining-in-chr... Head of line blocking is so well documented that there are many common web performance techniques to get around it, like domain sharding: http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2009/05/12/sharding-dominan.... It'd be very interesting to see where you get your data that head of line blocking is not a problem. I'm not sure where you are getting your info that SPDY was designed largely by one recent college grad. I don't think of Mike Belshe and Roberto Peon as the same person, much less recent college grads :) Maybe 40+ year olds still counts as "recent"? |
|
On your first link, note the "in chrome". Pipelining works great in Firefox, Opera, Android Browser, but Google has only ever tested with Chrome. In fact, probably the reason they didn't test pipelining in mobile Chrome was that it did not even support pipelining at the time. Google never went back once Chrome (kind of) supported pipelining.
Microsoft actually tested pipelining and found with it that HTTP was basically equivalent to SPDY in performance. Read the paper. And with an unoptimized pipelining implementation.
The page you link to provides a lot of hand waiving like about incompatibilities, but this is actually completely beside the point of whether the complication in SPDY actually improves anything. If you come up with a new protocol just to overcome bad proxies you can just as well have HTTP/1.2 that is exactly the same as HTTP/1.1 except pipelining works; incompatible proxies will only support HTTP/1.1 and the browser can disable pipelining (or some similar solution).
EDIT: apparently the main SPDY guy is older than I thought. The point stands however that having one or two people design a protocol to be used by the whole internet is a bad idea.