@Tato, WebSocket is specified by Google Inc, and (surpise?) it works already in CHROME. Google has a plan to have 100% HTML5 compliant browser to act as the only front end to its OS. In that context WebSockets are a necessity. And (surprise?) CHROME OS will be talking only with Goggle servers which will support WebSockets.
This is not rendering WebSokcets as useless, It is only showing you the reality in which MSFT, Mozilla and Opera can be less than enthusiastic about WebSockets. Also, Web Sockets is two standalone specifications, and no longer part of HTML5 ... Hope this helps -- DBJ On Jan 19, 4:25 am, tato <t...@game.gr.jp> wrote: > Thax, > > First the excuses. This is a discussion about the future. > However, this future is in front of us. > > Browser's between incompatibility in ajax was need JS Library / > jQuery, and was very helpful. It is, I agree. > > But even if there is compatibility, jQuery support of xhr is useful. > > Future browser with WebSockets implemented, I want compatibility > between them. > But I think, even if there is compatibility, jQuery support of ws is > useful too. Rather less code ;-) > > > WS is a bi-directional non-HTTP socket which needs a dedicated server. > > It's non-HTTP, but it's on-HTTP too. > I think, WS is a real bi-directional on-HTTP shares available socket, > isn't it? > > I tested on mod_pywebsocket, that is a Web Socket extension for Apache > HTTP Server. IETF specification is, The Web Socket default port is 80 > or 443. > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hixie-thewebsocketprotocol-44#sectio...http://code.google.com/p/pywebsocket/http://blog.chromium.org/2009/12/web-sockets-now-available-in-google.... > > > WS is simply "faster" because it doesn't need all the extra cruft in a > > HTTP call > > I think so too. XHR requires a lot of headers, and many connections. > WS is Handshake header 'GET / demo HTTP/1.1 ...', only once. > > WS is so friendly for network and servers. Moreover, "faster" on HTTP. > > With Best regards, for into the good future > > On 1月19日, 午前2:27, Daniel Friesen <nadir.seen.f...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I don't like the idea. At this point there is no reason to believe that > > any browser with WebSockets implemented will break spec and need a > > compatibility layer (the primary reason jQuery has ajax). I don't see > > how jQuery could add any functionality to WebSockets, the api is already > > quite nice, not to mention there are a large number of calls and parts > > to the api, so there would be a pile of jQuery code just matching up the > > api to make calls you could make without jQuery at all. > > > In any case, comparing WS to XHR in terms of speed is completely > > pointless. XHR is a way to make a HTTP call from JS. WS is a > > bi-directional non-HTTP socket which needs a dedicated server. They have > > completely different purposes and use cases, speed is irrelevant to a > > comparison. WS is simply "faster" because it doesn't need all the extra > > cruft in a HTTP call and it's an open dedicated connection between the > > browser and the server that doesn't close after every message. > > > ~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://daniel.friesen.name] > > > tato wrote: > > > WebSockets is very faster than xhr. I think jQuery had better support > > > WebSockets in Core. > > > > The following Samples of text mining are speed comparison, WS vs XHR. > > > at my Office(same bloga.jp), the speed difference was following. > > > > /* need Chrome4.0.249.0 + or Safari nightly */ > > > >http://bloga.jp/ws/jq/wakachi/mecab/wakachi.html > > > case websocket (pipeline) 156 msec > > > case XML HTTP request (parallel Ajax) 4978 msec > > > # 31-fold > > > >http://bloga.jp/ws/jq/wakachi/mecab/ruby.html > > > case websocket (pipeline) 339 msec > > > case XML HTTP request (parallel Ajax) 1506 msec > > > # 4-fold > > > > (http://code.google.com/p/websocket-sample/) > > > > eg. > > > W3C The Web Sockets API > > >http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/ > > > IETF The Web Socket protocol > > >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hixie-thewebsocketprotocol-44 > > > > My jQuery plugin for WS > > >http://plugins.jquery.com/project/ws
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jQuery Development" group. To post to this group, send email to jquery-...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to jquery-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en.
