On 17 Oct 2011, at 06:45, Joseph Gentle wrote: > On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Vicente J. Ruiz Jurado > <v...@ourproject.org> wrote: >> El 15/10/11 00:37, Yuri Z escribió: >>> I think someone mentioned that probably just updating to Jetty 7 will >>> suffice. >> >> Sorry, suffice for what? to solve the problem of compatibility between >> chrome and socket.io 0.6? I don't think so. >> >> El 14/10/11 21:08, Nelson Silva escribió: >>> Perhaps we should just update to socket.io 0.8 for now and try to >>> gather some pros and cons for atmosphere. >> >> I was looking on that, and seems that is not so easy to update to >> socket.io 0.8, or not for me. >> >> Bests, >> -- >> Vicente J. Ruiz Jurado > > I don't think there is a socket.io 0.8 server implementation in java.
There's a partial one that only works for Jetty and not Tomcat or other servlet containers, but I don't know how actively its being maintained. > The wire protocol is completely different. As for flashsocket, as well > as using an old version of the websocket protocol, it can't traverse > HTTP proxies. > > I'm struggling with the same problems with ShareJS. I've implemented a > BrowserChannel server for node.js and I'm looking at extending it with > websocket support (where available). It'd be much less work for wave > in a box to use atmosphere or something though. .. Or a bayeux > implementation of some sort. Atmosphere is looking like the best option for java websockets right now. Bayeux is an interesting fallback option - I've also played around with using Faye for wave-node and it works OK. > > -J
