El 17/10/11 07:45, Joseph Gentle escribió: > 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. > 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. > > -J >
Yes, seems that socket.io 0.8 is a total rewrite. There is a migration document https://github.com/LearnBoost/Socket.IO/wiki/Migrating-0.6-to-0.7+ but... I was this weekend playing with atmosphere and suffering the Cons described in: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/web/library/wa-reverseajax4/index.html that, by the way, is a good (and recent) series about this topic. It's written by the author of (I think an unmaintained) fork of socketio-java: http://code.google.com/p/socketio-java/issues/detail?id=6 Bests, -- Vicente J. Ruiz Jurado http://comunes.org http://ourproject.org http://homes.ourproject.org/~vjrj/blog "Whenever there is a conflict between human rights and property rights, human rights must prevail." [Abraham Lincoln]
