Closed digitalextremist closed 8 years ago
@kenichi have you worked out any HTTP/2 specific tests yet by chance?
@kenichi this depends on Ruby 2.0+ syntax ... that's a pretty big decision. We may want to detect 2.0
and only include this if it's there... on a Gemfile
level as well as in Reel
@digitalextremist the http-2 gem requires ruby 2.0+ syntax? i didn't see a version req in the gemspec... i probably did put some 2.x hash syntax in my commit... if that's what you mean, i can fix that. obvs, i'm still learning about http/2 and what it entails. no tests yet, i was just seeing if it would work at all. there are some issues possibly with the http-2 gem still:
https://github.com/igrigorik/http-2/issues/33
This one works with chrome tho, i believe because the "h2" during TLS:
https://gist.github.com/kenichi/cbc5745809966986cc87
I'm looking more into the RFC and the various other servers that implement like nghttp etc. See also:
@kenichi yeah, what I saw was hash syntax, the **
glitter. I think it's great, but I know for a fact the current syntax is largely why Angelo for example isn't being deployed more, which is a shame. I will dig into the links when I can and come talk to you about some ideas. If we can cooperate on some changes, I think we can bring Reel
up to 1.0
alongside Celluloid
smoothly. I invited you to Celluloid
in a read capacity on reel
, reel-rack
, and celluloid-io
-- but as an official contributor -- as a path to more, like reel-core /cc: @tarcieri
@digitalextremist :+1:
Take a look at the latest commit to my branch, and perhaps if http-2
's use of new syntax is undesirable, maybe ds9
as a wrapper for nghttp
is a good alternative. I'd like to chat more about reel's current structure, Reel::Stream, etc. Things like breaking out of the each_request
loop feel super hacky.
@kenichi what's the issue with http-2's syntax? If its anything we can fix, lmk.
@igrigorik i think the issue is that reel would like to maintain 1.9 compat. apart from 2.x syntax, is there anything else in http-2 that would break that? also, i know the examples don't support upgrade, but are there plans to support the upgrade response stream in http-2 itself? i had to do some not great things to make it work in reel:
I'd be fine with ditching 1.9 support. It's EOL, and JRuby 9000 will be shipping soon I hope hope hope! /cc @headius
@tarcieri @kenichi if dropping 1.9 is an option, then a hearty +1 to that.
Re, h2c support: yeah, I think that's reasonable to support in core. That said, I would like nudge everyone away from plaintext and towards secure transports.. I don't think Tony will disagree with that either :)
@igrigorik I'd suggest waiting for the JRuby 9000 release, then immediately dropping 1.9 support when it's GA
@tarcieri makes sense. Based on stated roadmap, it sounds like it'll be out "soon"? If we think it's something that's ~months away (not years), then I think that's a reasonable thing to block on.
Next week! But don't tell anyone!
@headius I'm sure your public github comment will be kept in the highest confidence
Ok, well JRuby 9000 is out. I say we deprecate 1.9 support in the next release.
Ticketed that, and will start moving the last few 1.9
dependents I am aware of while removing support.
:+1:
Cleaning house on these
This upcoming release is being started with @kenichi's HTTP/2 update as a prompting.