Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I set out to create a "simpler HTTP" once. Ended up concluding that by the time you've added the basic features, you need most of what a minimal HTTP request gives you. There might be some marginal gains to be made, but it's simply not worth it. HTTP is too good.

Commenting on this proposal directly, I don't see how a stateful protocol could ever be simpler than a subset of HTTP/1.1 with range requests.



This, HTTP/1.1 already is a simple protocol with the “things you will forget to add in the first version” added.


This is not trying to replace HTTP, it's an attempt at an alternative to "HTTP for big blob downloads". Likewise for the other protocols mentions.


Does it add anything that HTTP can't do with range requests?

I remember hearing that range requests are clunky to implement for HTTP (reverse) proxies, but otherwise they seem to do their job just fine?


I'm guessing range requests are not problematic for proxies, just for caches (which are usually proxies also).

A pure proxy (reverse or not) should have no problem with a range request.


Ah yes, that's what I meant – problematic for caching proxies. Regular ones can of course just pass through the request.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: