Re: [RFC] protocol version 2

Brandon Williams [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

I actually have a reasonable guess why you want to have a separate
delimiter (which has nothing to do with "optional delim can be
omitted"), but I want to see it explained in this document clearly
by its designer(s).

Jonathan Tan suggested that we tighten flush semantics in a newer
protocol so that proxies are easier to work with.  Currently proxies
need to understand the protocol instead of simply waiting for a flush.

Also I've been told the smart http code is more complex because of the
current semantics of flush packets.

I think the above two are the same thing ;-) but yes, "flush" in the
original protocol were used for both "I am truly finished talking;
now it is your turn" and "I am done with one section of what I need
to say, and a different section now begins; it is still my turn to
speak".  The need to handle the latter makes smart-http quite ugly.

Thanks.