All of this functionality can be built upon the current spec, but
constraining the spec to support this convenience precludes other uses.
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:42 PM, Brett Zamir bret...@gmail.com wrote:
user to parse the response text, why not simply allow each event to be a
JSON-encoded object of some kind (boolean, number, string, array, object).
Then the event.data could be an object which was already conveniently
accessible to JavaScript consumers. Presumably server-side libraries would
handle the work of doing the encoding, but the average client-side consumer
should, in my opinion, not need to be concerned with implementation details,
except to become familiar with the specific JSON response types being sent
by the server-side code/library.
Although this would add encoding responsibilities to the server and
decoding responsibilities to the browser, I think it ought to avoid the need
for the client code to be concerned with ugly implementation details such as
the need to parse strings.
A convention might also be used in the stream (e.g., error: followed by
a JSON object) to trigger errors, allowing the normal responses to be simple
strings or the like, while offering a means to distinguish them from error
messages sent by the server (e.g., to indicate that a data source was no
longer available). The event object could add an error property which
could be checked (or, if types were allowed as per my previous post, it
could set the event type to the reserved string error).
Brett
--
Benjamin Goering
Hacker, Goofy Guy
Livefyre Inc.
+1(785)224-0136
