ok, I'll get to this start of next week with a comprehensive test case and
report back.
M
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Martin Grigorov wrote:
> You can check with Google Chrome and/or IE10 to see whether it is not
> something in Firefox
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Michael Roberts
You can check with Google Chrome and/or IE10 to see whether it is not
something in Firefox
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Michael Roberts wrote:
> This was using .35 with the default connector (just a generic tomcat
> install using the installer, on windows 7 64bit) from current firefox. I
>
oh, and this was using an established connection. text message however.
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Michael Roberts wrote:
>
> This was using .35 with the default connector (just a generic tomcat
> install using the installer, on windows 7 64bit) from current firefox. I
> can't tell you
This was using .35 with the default connector (just a generic tomcat
install using the installer, on windows 7 64bit) from current firefox. I
can't tell you the exact time difference currently, but I can say that if I
chain the calling of the REST API off the end off the completion of the
WebSocke
On 29/01/2013 20:04, Michael Roberts wrote:
> I'm seeing some differences in the latency of making a post request via
> jQuery versus sending a websockets message. It maybe that this is overhead
> in my application caused by processing the json I am sending in the
> message, but I find this hard t
I'm seeing some differences in the latency of making a post request via
jQuery versus sending a websockets message. It maybe that this is overhead
in my application caused by processing the json I am sending in the
message, but I find this hard to believe. I imagined that web socket
connection sh
