On Sat, 07 Nov 2020 10:17:20 +0300 "Leo" <list at gkbrk.com> wrote: > I don't understand why a client caching responses is rude. Or rather, > I don't understand who it is being rude to. When I configure my HTTP > or Gemini browser to cache every response, is my browser now being > rude to me? Is it being rude to the server? The rude thing here would be having to serve large files over Gemini and expect them to be served often, the protocol operates under the assumption that caching does not exist, it's by convention, this simplifies the client a LOT and removes such uncertainty when writing dynamic content for Gemini. Consider reading 2.1.1 in gemini://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/faq.gmi > How can something that causes less resource usage on the server be > rude to the server, or something I configured or downloaded as a > "client that has caching" be rude to me for using it? Because the server operates under the assumption that content is not cached, if you're serving large files over Gemini you should look somewhere else, this is not bittorrent, and if your server is eating up a lot of resources, you're doing Gemini wrong, Gemini servers don't have to be complicated, that's your own problem. Consider using connection queue and serving connections one by instead of forking or multithreading because the protocol allows such simple design by closing the connection right after the transaction, it's not like in HTTP land where you have keep-alive. > Is not doing everything a server sends being rude to the server > operator? If a server sends a 100000000x100000000 image, is my image > viewer being rude for refusing to decode/display it? No, its being sane, this does not apply here. Does everyone here require a lecture on why their desired features aren't in the protocol yet? seems to be the common point of discussion here, as if the protocol is NOT ENOUGH, I don't know what brought your interest here, did you see it as a great way of avoiding the current scope creep of the modern web, or as a playground to satisfy your bad ideas? Do you have anything else to help the community with? perhaps hosting content in the Gemini space? or helping in the development of tools interacting with the protocol? or is your interest just satisfied when the spec becomes ten times of its current size, then you can MAYBE decide to use the protocol for yourself. If any feature does not add a great value at an acceptable cost to the simplicity of the protocol, consider it rejected before even proposing it, I don't want to have a different experience browsing Gemini space using netcat than using Kristall.
---
Previous in thread (15 of 55): 🗣️ Leo (list (a) gkbrk.com)
Next in thread (17 of 55): 🗣️ Martin Keegan (martin (a) no.ucant.org)