On 2 Nov 2010, at 19:07, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 19:03, Benjamin Young <[email protected]> wrote: >> The "draft" status isn't what would keep WebSockets out of CouchDB. CouchDB >> uses HTTP for it's API, so unless CouchDB were to pipe HTTP over the >> WebSocket protocol (which would be silly) or implement a straight >> TCP/IP-based API (which is highly unlikely), WebSockets doesn't bring much >> to the table. >> >> If you're looking for "streamed" data from CouchDB, you might checkout the >> _changes feed. There's also been some Comet work done in the past (I think). > > Mmm, I think continuous changes as implemented by CouchDB would be a > much better fit for WebSockets than for chunked transfer-encoding, the > way it's done now.
Can you qualify "better fit". Not trying to throw stones your way, but what exactly makes it better in your view? (Maybe all I need is a link to the ticket :) Cheers Jan -- > I've opened a ticket about this in the past, and I > think at least a few people agree with me on this. One of the holdups > is that mochiweb, the http layer CouchDB uses, doesn't implement > WebSockets yet. There's a fork on GitHub which supports it, but the > mochiweb author has said he wouldn't merge it unless asked > specifically to do so (because he has had no need for the > functionality so far). > > Cheers, > > Dirkjan
