httpd-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Cardwell <>
Subject Re: [users@httpd] Just curious on SPDY
Date Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:55:57 GMT
Brian Mearns wrote:

>>>            Just curious to know whether  Google announcement on SPDY
>>> needs change only in
>>> Apache web server side or even needs change in application point of view
>>> also.          Sorry to spam you guys .
>> Both the server and the client would need to be updated in order to take
>> advantage of it. If one or both don't support it, then the fallback would be
>> normal HTTP.
>> --
>> Mike Cardwell - IT Consultant and LAMP developer
>> Cardwell IT Ltd. (UK Reg'd Company #06920226)
>> Technical Blog:
> [clip]
> Yes, SPDY is a new protocol which will require both the server and
> client to support in order for it to work. However, from a user
> perspective, I believe the goal is for it to be transparent. In other
> words, if your browser and the web server it's talking to both support
> SPDY, they will figure that out and use it. If either of them don't
> support it, they'll just use plain old HTTP. Either way, you won't see
> the difference as a user other than the potential speed benefits.
> Just to be clear, SPDY is far from being a new web-standard. Right
> now, it's just a research project Google is undertaking: I think it's
> going to be quite a while (a year at minimum) before any one (other
> than Google, at least) thinks seriously about deploying it. But that's
> just my $0.02.

I agree with the above. I started this thread to make people aware of 
it's existance and to provoke discussion on the matter. However, if 
someone were to take up the reigns and begin developing an Apache module 
for it using the open source code and specs Google has published, I 
think the project has a more serious chance of succeeding. I also think 
that an Apache with SPDY support available before the spec is finalised 
would be in a stronger position to influence how the protocol evolves 
during it's development.

I also wonder if a transition like this to a new protocol could/should 
be taken advantage of to get rid of the one SSL cert per IP:port 
limitation we currently suffer from? Although the transition to ipv6 
will get rid of this problem (lack of ip addresses) anyway without 
having to do any further work.

Mike Cardwell - IT Consultant and LAMP developer
Cardwell IT Ltd. (UK Reg'd Company #06920226)
Technical Blog:

The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
   "   from the digest:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message