On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 11:08, Graham Leggett <[email protected]> wrote: > On 30 Mar 2011, at 4:41 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > >> My guess is that it would if it were told to use a proxy for ws. >> >> Keep in mind that when I say proxy, I do not mean to include "reverse >> proxy". >> A reverse proxy of websockets is just an implementation of websockets or >> a tunnel. I consider both to be pretty dangerous and better done in >> a special-purpose server rather than as a child of Apache httpd. > > When you say "pretty dangerous", are you referring to the danger of reaching > the limit of slots willing to be served by the server, or something else? > > I would say that any server that supports the idea of long lived connections > faces this danger, I don't see why httpd (suitably and sensibly configured > obviously, probably with an event mpm and a limit as to the number of slots > we allow to be long lived) can't play too.
I think that Roy's point is simply that httpd would be nothing more than a socket-listener and tunnel. There is very little that it can bring to the table at that point, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to lump in websockets capabilities. Cheers, -g
