Isn't h2c an implementation detail?
Jetty already supports direct connection with h2c. We plan to support
upgrade (but our own upgrade not an application usage of the servlet
upgrade) if and when we have a client that wants it.
But I don't see how this affects the servlet container API?
cheers
On 18 December 2014 at 23:40, Stuart Douglas <sdouglas_at_redhat.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > MT> Given that, do we want to require containers to support h2c?
> >
> > While browsers do represent the bulk of software interacting with
> > Servlet implementations, they are not the only ones. Stuart, where do
> > you come by your assertion that browsers are not going to implement
> > HTTP/2 over upgrade?
> >
>
> So looks like I mis-remembered, Chrome and Firefox will not implement h2c,
> while IE will (although AFAIK have not as yet)
>
> Chrome:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013OctDec/0676.html
> Firefox (I can't find the email where the definitively state that, but it
> is referenced in passing in a lot of the WG emails):
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013OctDec/0987.html
> IE: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013OctDec/0662.html
>
> For what its worth I think we should support h2c in servlet, both via
> upgrade and prior knowledge. Even if browsers don't end up supporting it
> there will likely be plenty of use cases where it is useful (e.g. at the
> moment AJP is widely used to connect a load balancer to backend servers, in
> time to come I can see h2c filling this role instead).
>
> Stuart
>
--
Greg Wilkins <gregw_at_intalio.com> @ Webtide - *an Intalio subsidiary*
http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales
http://www.webtide.com advice and support for jetty and cometd.