On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 6:53 AM, Robin Berjon <ro...@berjon.com> wrote:
> So if you do have a use case, by all means please share it. If not, I > maintain that you simply have no grounds for objection. > I did share a couple of use cases in my response to Ian: On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Ian Hickson <i...@hixie.ch> wrote: > >> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012, Glenn Adams wrote: >> > >> > Are you asking for use cases for a remote/lazy blob in general? i.e., as >> > would apply to the proposed XHR usage and any other underlying supported >> > data source? or are you asking about high level use cases that are >> > particular to a WS binding but not an XHR binding? >> >> Both would be useful, but my primary concern is Web Sockets, since I edit >> that spec. Before I can consider proposals that affect Web Sockets, I need >> to know what use case it is we're trying to address. >> > > I will let Robin and Jungkee reply to the more general use case > requirements. As far as WS is concerned, I don't see any impact of this > thread on the WS API or WSP specs, its really simply an application of > WS/WSP to "remote/lazy blobs". > > Clearly, there are many high level use cases that involve a repetitive > send/response message paradigm, which can certainly be implemented with > XHR, but some application authors would prefer using WS for various > efficiency reasons. My suggestion is essentially: if we are going to > define a remote blob bound to an XHR source for a one-shot send-response, > then perhaps we should define a remote blob bound to a WS source for > multiple send-response pairs. For example, a symmetric presence protocol or > IM protocol would typically fall into this usage category. > > Using remote blobs for either the send or response data (or both) would be > useful for certain architectures and provide more deployment flexibility > and perhaps greater efficiencies. > >
