[Info-vax] Using VMS for a web server

[Jan-Erik Soderholm]

Dirk Munk skrev den 2015-06-07 10:14:
> Stephen Hoffman wrote:
>>
>> ps/btw/fwiw: for those pondering the available implementations and
>> the compatibility of web browsers and of web servers, there are some
>> HTTP changes underway, with HTTP/2:
>>
>> http://chimera.labs.oreilly.com/books/1230000000545/ch12.html
>>
>
> Thanks for pointing us at that page. I had been reading about this a few
> weeks ago, and this is a big improvement indeed. I had been thinking
> about something like that for years, in very vague terms that is. It
> always appeared to me how very inefficient HTTP is in transmitting a web
> page. For every item on the page a new connection is made, a waste of
> resources, and very time consuming. I always wondered if it wouldn't
> been possible to zip the whole page at the server and send it in one
> stream. It seems the push mechanism og HTTP/2 is doing something
> similar, inspecting the page for links to other objects, and including
> those objects in the stream before the client asks for them.
>

Here is another page that clears up some points:

http://www.infoworld.com/article/2886381/internet/seven-no-bull-facts-about-the-new-http-2-protocol.html

And here is what the WASD maintainer says about it:

> HTTP/2
>
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP/2
>
> has recently moved from draft to published IETF RFC 7540
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7540
>
> Not without its critics, it does look like becoming the next
> instantiation ofthe Web protocol" and so deserves attention.
>
> A WASD implementation actively is being pursued (though at a very early
> stage) and if runs to completion would constitute WASD v11.  However the
> protocol and associated header compression RFC are non-trivial and the
> developmental timeline probably puts any release somewhere in late
> 2016.I looked at its progenitor development, SPDY, a couple of years
> ago but understandably was unprepared to put in the effort on an
> "experiment". Whether or not the average WASD site will benefit from
> HTTP/2 is moot as it doesn't fundamentally change the underlying
> semantics of HTTP/1.1 (it could be thought of as "wrapper" of sorts) and
> is targeted at reducing perceived networking bottlenecks in the
> client-server relationship.
>
> Cheers...