Re: [RFC] protocol version 2

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Brandon Williams <bmwill@google.com> writes:

>> 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.