> > Of course this is pretty much impossible with PHP. Of course this is > pretty much impossible with PHP.
No it's not. You use PHP's sockets functions, albeit PHP is probably not the most optimal language for setting up a websocket server. *--* *Tyler Romeo* Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2015 Major in Computer Science www.whizkidztech.com | [email protected] On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 3:13 AM, Daniel Friesen <[email protected]>wrote: > On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 23:22:04 -0700, Tyler Romeo <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Yeah, I have to agree on this one. I was never a particular fan of SPDY. >> Yes, HTTP needs a reworking, but only the concepts behind SPDY are good, >> not its actual implementation. I'd sooner implement some sort of WebSocket >> interface for MW, such as having the server push load.php resources over a >> socket, or maybe having an improved edit form that tells your browser when >> another user edits the page. >> > > Of course this is pretty much impossible with PHP. > > -- > ~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://daniel.friesen.name] > > *--* >> *Tyler Romeo* >> >> Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2015 >> Major in Computer Science >> www.whizkidztech.com | [email protected] >> >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 2:03 AM, Dmitriy Sintsov <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >>> >>> 27 Октябрь 2012 г. 23:20:39 пользователь Chad ([email protected] >>> ) >>> >>>> написал: >>>> >>>> Not to mention varnish/squid. >>>> >>>> >>>> Varnish author on SPDY: >>>> >>> http://developers.slashdot.****org/story/12/07/13/1327235/** >>> varnish-author-suggests-spdy-****should-be-viewed-as-a-****prototype< >>> http://developers.**slashdot.org/story/12/07/13/** >>> 1327235/varnish-author-**suggests-spdy-should-be-**viewed-as-a-prototype<http://developers.slashdot.org/story/12/07/13/1327235/varnish-author-suggests-spdy-should-be-viewed-as-a-prototype> >>> > >>> >>> >>> "The author of Varnish, Poul-Henning Kamp, has written an interesting >>> critique of SPDY and the other draft protocols trying to become HTTP 2.0. >>> He suggests none of the candidates make the cut. Quoting: 'Overall, I >>> find >>> the design approach taken in SPDY deeply flawed. For instance identifying >>> the standardized HTTP headers, by a 4-byte length and textual name, and >>> then applying a deflate compressor to save bandwidth is totally at odds >>> with the job of HTTP routers which need to quickly extract the Host: >>> header >>> in order to route the traffic, preferably without committing extensive >>> resources to each request. ... It is still unclear for me if or how SPDY >>> can be used on TCP port 80 or if it will need a WKS allocation of its >>> own, >>> which would open a ton of issues with firewalling, filtering and proxying >>> during deployment. (This is one of the things which makes it hard to >>> avoid >>> the feeling that SPDY really wants to do away with all the "middle-men") >>> With my security-analyst hat on, I see a lot of DoS potential in the SPDY >>> protocol, many ways in which the client can make the server expend >>> resources, and foresee a lot of complexity in implementing the server >>> side >>> to mitigate and deflect malicious traffic.' >>> >> > > ______________________________**_________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l> > _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
