On Fri, 4 Sep 2009, Wellington Fernando de Macedo wrote:
Ian, do you intend to add any other features to the first version of
WebSocket? If yes, which ones?
I was thinking of adding multiplexing, but after discussing this with a
variety of people, I'm leaning towards leaving the protocol as
WenboZhu wrote:
While the concerns on the server-side are overstated, the analogy to http is
also questionable ... The current protocol, being a *scoket* layer protocol,
is in principle different than http, which is strictly a L7 RPC protocol.
Wenbo,
TCP/IP does not map well to OSI layer
For the record, I'm perfectly happy with WebSockets not being made any more
complicated for v1 (i.e. no multi-plexing), but I don't think your arguments
against it are compelling at all, so I'm going to play devils advocate:
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 3:45 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, Jonas Sicking wrote:
What would the API look like?
It seems like it could be done transparently to the web developer. If
you open 2
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 1:45 AM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, Jonas Sicking wrote:
How do you envisage multiplexing working? It's not clear to me what we
could do that would be easier to handle than just having the script
manually do the multiplexing at the
While the concerns on the server-side are overstated, the analogy to http is
also questionable ... The current protocol, being a *scoket* layer protocol,
is in principle different than http, which is strictly a L7 RPC protocol.
Is there any fundamental limitation for different UI components to
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 3:45 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, Jonas Sicking wrote:
I agree that these are very interesting features. Especially
connection multiplexing is something that I think is a good idea,
for
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, Jonas Sicking wrote:
How do you envisage multiplexing working? It's not clear to me what we
could do that would be easier to handle than just having the script
manually do the multiplexing at the application layer. What would the
API look like? What would the wire
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, Jonas Sicking wrote:
I agree that these are very interesting features. Especially connection
multiplexing is something that I think is a good idea, for the reasons
you've mentioned elsewhere in this thread (multiple widgets on the same
page).
How do you envisage
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 3:45 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, Jonas Sicking wrote:
I agree that these are very interesting features. Especially connection
multiplexing is something that I think is a good idea, for the reasons
you've mentioned elsewhere in this
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 3:45 AM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, Jonas Sicking wrote:
I agree that these are very interesting features. Especially connection
multiplexing is something that I think is a good idea, for the reasons
you've mentioned elsewhere in this thread
11 matches
Mail list logo
