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
