On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 00:21:38 +0200, Mark Frohnmayer
mark.frohnma...@gmail.com wrote:
TorqueSocket is not in the same category as RakNet or OpenTNL
Ah, sorry I got the names mixed up, I meant to say RakNet/OpenTNL and not
RakNet/TorqueSocket.
I'd recommend doing some real-world testing
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 06:25:41 +0200, Lars Eggert lars.egg...@nokia.com
wrote:
Hi,
on a purely managerial level, let me point out that this work is far
beyond the current charter of the HYBI WG. This defines an entirely new
protocol, and will definitely require a charter discussion.
(If
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 3:18 AM, Erik Möller emol...@opera.com wrote:
Absolutely, that's why the path-MTU attribute was suggested. The ~64k limit
is an absolute limit though at which sends can be rejected immediately
without even trying.
Ah, gotcha. I was trying to separate the cases of MTU
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Erik Möller emol...@opera.com wrote:
Regarding the discussions on at what level the API of a UDP-WebSocket should
be: One of the most important aspects to remember are that for this to be
interesting to application developers we need all the browser vendors to
During the Opera Network Seminar held in Oslo this week I discussed the
possible addition of a new wsd: URL scheme to WebSockets that would allow
relaxing the packet resends and enable demanding real-time applications to
be written. I'd like to summarize some of the conclusions a few of us
On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 01:07:48 +0200, Mark Frohnmayer
mark.frohnma...@gmail.com wrote:
Glad to see this discussion rolling! For what it's worth, the Torque
Sockets design effort was to take a stab at answering this question --
what is the least-common-denominator webby API/protocol that's
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Erik Möller emol...@opera.com wrote:
I was hoping to be able to avoid looking at what the interfaces of a high vs
low level option would look like this early on in the discussions, but
perhaps we need to do just that; look at Torque, RakNet etc and find a least
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Mark Frohnmayer
mark.frohnma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Erik Möller emol...@opera.com wrote:
So, what would the minimal set of limitations be to make a UDP WebSocket
browser-safe?
-No listen sockets
Only feedback here would be I think
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 4:35 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
On 2 Jun 2010, at 00:07, Mark Frohnmayer wrote:
A single UDP socket can host multiple connections (indexed by packet
source address), so even a modest limit on actual number of sockets
wouldn't be a big impediment.
Um, NAT?
You
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Mark Frohnmayer
mark.frohnma...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 4:35 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
On 2 Jun 2010, at 00:07, Mark Frohnmayer wrote:
A single UDP socket can host multiple connections (indexed by packet
source address), so even a modest
10 matches
Mail list logo
