russell.leggett at gmail.com
Mon Oct 14 14:50:39 PDT 2013
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Jorge Chamorro <jorge at jorgechamorro.com>wrote:
> On 14/10/2013, at 23:32, Russell Leggett wrote:
> > This is probably the wrong place to ask the question, but I was just
> thinking about the whole HTTP 2 server push thing. In a way, it surely wins
> in the # of requests camp if it works as described - you request index.html
> and the server intelligently starts pushing you not only index.html, but
> also everything index.html needs. Even in the case of bundling, you at
> least need to wait for index.html to come back before you can ask for the
> bundle. And even better, because it sends everything in original granular
> form, surely the caching story must be better, you won't wind up
> overbundling or having overlapping bundles. Then I realized a major
> (potential) flaw. If the server always pushes the dependencies for
> index.html without being asked - doesn't that completely wreck the browser
> cache? Browser caching relies on knowing when - and when *not* to ask. If
> server push starts sending things without being asked, isn't that
> potentially sending down a lot of unnecessary data?
> I think I've read somewhere that it sends the resources in separate
> 'streams' that can be cancelled if not needed.
Ah, ok, that makes sense. I would hate to think anyone would have
overlooked that aspect.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss