Rémy,
On 9/28/15 3:33 AM, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
> 2015-09-27 14:32 GMT+02:00 Christopher Schultz > :
>
>>
>> In general, I think that the proposal to abandon AJP and use HTTP/2
>> instead makes a lot of sense. However, AJP still does offer an advantage
>> over HTTP/1 or HTTP/2: it allows informat
2015-09-27 14:32 GMT+02:00 Christopher Schultz :
>
> In general, I think that the proposal to abandon AJP and use HTTP/2
> instead makes a lot of sense. However, AJP still does offer an advantage
> over HTTP/1 or HTTP/2: it allows information to be passed out-of-band
> with respect to the message
Jean-Frederic,
On 9/25/15 7:58 AM, jean-frederic clere wrote:
> On 09/25/2015 10:51 AM, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
>> 2015-09-25 9:29 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas :
>>
>>> I'm not so sure. HTTP/2 explicitly doesn't support HTTP upgrade. The
>>> HTTP/2 spec expects protocols like WebSocket to use ALPN. Despite
On 25/09/2015 18:38, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 25/09/2015 17:05, Andrew Carr wrote:
>> Rémy,
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> I reread what I asked about the wiki and I realize it might not have been
>> clear. Mark said,
>> *"Long term, we probably do need to migrate the wiki. Short term we
>> can **use
On 25/09/2015 17:05, Andrew Carr wrote:
> Rémy,
>
> Thank you.
>
> I reread what I asked about the wiki and I realize it might not have been
> clear. Mark said,
> *"Long term, we probably do need to migrate the wiki. Short term we
> can **use the new instance just for this." *
> and I was
Rémy,
Thank you.
I reread what I asked about the wiki and I realize it might not have been
clear. Mark said,
*"Long term, we probably do need to migrate the wiki. Short term we
can **use the new instance just for this." *
and I was curious about access, is it already out there and I just d
2015-09-25 17:43 GMT+02:00 Andrew Carr :
> Mark,
>
> Couple of questions. What wiki is the "new" cwiki? Will my wiki account
> from the old server be transferred to the new cwiki?
>
> Devs,
>
> I see arguments for and against the protocol upgrade. Based on different
> opinions, so far, we are i
Mark,
Couple of questions. What wiki is the "new" cwiki? Will my wiki account
from the old server be transferred to the new cwiki?
Devs,
I see arguments for and against the protocol upgrade. Based on different
opinions, so far, we are inadvertently building a list of options for the
future of
The one really compelling /usability /bit about AJP proxying is that
requests look like you're in/at the web server in question and receiving
requests directly from the client of the web server.
The fact that you are not is completely and utterly transparent to your
web application code.
The
On 09/25/2015 10:51 AM, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
2015-09-25 9:29 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas :
I'm not so sure. HTTP/2 explicitly doesn't support HTTP upgrade. The
HTTP/2 spec expects protocols like WebSocket to use ALPN. Despite this,
there has been work to try and layer WebSocket on top of HTTP/2.
At
2015-09-25 9:29 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas :
> I'm not so sure. HTTP/2 explicitly doesn't support HTTP upgrade. The
> HTTP/2 spec expects protocols like WebSocket to use ALPN. Despite this,
> there has been work to try and layer WebSocket on top of HTTP/2.
>
> At this point in time proxying WebSocket i
On 24/09/2015 14:48, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
> 2015-09-24 15:13 GMT+02:00 Andrew Carr :
>
>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 4:52 AM, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
>>
>>> 2015-09-24 11:04 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas :
>>>
I think there is a clear case for a new version. The first thing to do
would be to pull a
On 24/09/2015 14:52, Andrew Carr wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I have been following the AJP enhancements for a long time and it seems
>> the
>>> protocol is stagnant.
>>
>> I prefer 'mature'.
>>
>
> Apologies. Mature is a much more appropriate word.
>
>
>>> I do see some updates in the last year to the
>>>
>
>
> > I have been following the AJP enhancements for a long time and it seems
> the
> > protocol is stagnant.
>
> I prefer 'mature'.
>
Apologies. Mature is a much more appropriate word.
> > I do see some updates in the last year to the
> > enhancements page and some of the bugs, but there is
2015-09-24 15:13 GMT+02:00 Andrew Carr :
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 4:52 AM, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
>
> > 2015-09-24 11:04 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas :
> >
> > > I think there is a clear case for a new version. The first thing to do
> > > would be to pull all the ideas together in one place (I'm thinkin
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 4:52 AM, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
> 2015-09-24 11:04 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas :
>
> > I think there is a clear case for a new version. The first thing to do
> > would be to pull all the ideas together in one place (I'm thinking the
> > wiki), agree what needs to be in AJP.next a
2015-09-24 11:04 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas :
> I think there is a clear case for a new version. The first thing to do
> would be to pull all the ideas together in one place (I'm thinking the
> wiki), agree what needs to be in AJP.next and then work on updating the
> specification to accommodate it.
>
Am 24.09.2015 um 11:04 schrieb Mark Thomas:
On 24/09/2015 02:45, Andrew Carr wrote:
Devs,
I have been following the AJP enhancements for a long time and it seems the
protocol is stagnant.
I prefer 'mature'.
I do see some updates in the last year to the
enhancements page and some of the bugs
On 24/09/2015 02:45, Andrew Carr wrote:
> Devs,
>
> I have been following the AJP enhancements for a long time and it seems the
> protocol is stagnant.
I prefer 'mature'.
> I do see some updates in the last year to the
> enhancements page and some of the bugs, but there is not much activity. I
19 matches
Mail list logo
