On Wed, 15 Jul 2009, Alex Rousskov wrote: > On 07/15/2009 01:59 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: > > On Wed, 15 Jul 2009, Mark Nottingham wrote: > >> Can you remind me why you need the handshake to look like valid HTTP > >> again? I think that's the crux here. > > > > Because in some cases, people will want to share the same port for their > > HTTP server as for their WebSocket server. For example, if they want to do > > TLS-WebSocket-over-port-443, in the case where that host also has an HTTPS > > server on port 443. > > Can such a dual-purpose port-sharing server implement both HTTP and > WebSocket stacks and use the right stack depending on the first byte[s] > of the incoming message?
Isn't that exactly what an HTTP Upgrade is? > If port sharing is the primary motivation here, then dual protocol stack > support seems like the right solution. > > This can be even implemented as a dumb TCP-level "switch" application > that connects to either an HTTP server or a WebSocket server behind it. > No "binary" HTTP messages, no risk of HTTP intermediaries screwing up > with the not-really-HTTP-but-looking-like-one traffic. Just two > completely different protocols sharing the same port. That's exactly what WebSocket is doing. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
