FWIW, in my case I fall back to polling every 10s in case websockets
are not supported. However, as soon as IE9 penetration drops to an
insignificant level I will stop with fallbacks.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:11 PM, <andr...@itship.ch> wrote:
> Seems like we have a similar goal, Amaury! Cool :)
>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 03:52:42AM -0700, Amaury Hernández Águila wrote:
>>> Yeah that would be nice. So, isn't that a good reason to have websockets
>> I would not say so. In a video game you have so much continuous
>> communication going on (most notably the stream of image frames), that
>> you don't need an extra channel.
>> UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=Unsubscribe
> Online games don't work by feeding single frames to clients. There are now
> a few companies trying to get this alive - like video streaming for games
> - but this not working fluently as the amount of data to transfer when
> rendering images on the server is just too big to have a reasonable
> latency for real-time-games (in opposite to turn based games).
> The continuous communication in a online game is chat and game logic
> messages - user input going up to the server, and results of that inputs
> together with results of behaviour from other agents going down to client