Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 04:09 AM 22/01/02 +0000, Miles Sabin wrote: >But look what we're doing here: we're layering another protocol on top >of HTTP, a protocol which doesn't match HTTPs semantics very well. I'm >not saying it _can't_ be done with HTTP, just that there are better >ways of going about it. Granted. But to the list of HTTP's virtues we should add: 1. It's here and deployed and debugged and well-understood 2. It seems to degrade remarkably gracefully under pressure (I still don't understand why this is the case) The take-away is that no sensible person would assert that HTTP should be used for 99% of everything. But a sensible person has to raise the question: if HTTP can be made to work, what's the cost/benefit ratio of using something else? -Tim
|
