On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Ian Hickson <i...@hixie.ch> wrote: > On Mon, 6 Aug 2012, Glenn Adams wrote: > > > > I did share a couple of use cases in my response to Ian: > > > > > I will let Robin and Jungkee reply to the more general use case > > > requirements. As far as WS is concerned, I don't see any impact of > > > this thread on the WS API or WSP specs, its really simply an > > > application of WS/WSP to "remote/lazy blobs". > > > > > > Clearly, there are many high level use cases that involve a repetitive > > > send/response message paradigm, which can certainly be implemented > > > with XHR, but some application authors would prefer using WS for > > > various efficiency reasons. My suggestion is essentially: if we are > > > going to define a remote blob bound to an XHR source for a one-shot > > > send-response, then perhaps we should define a remote blob bound to a > > > WS source for multiple send-response pairs. For example, a symmetric > > > presence protocol or IM protocol would typically fall into this usage > > > category. > > > > > > Using remote blobs for either the send or response data (or both) > > > would be useful for certain architectures and provide more deployment > > > flexibility and perhaps greater efficiencies. > > Those are still not use cases, for the record. I tried explaining what a > use case was here: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012JulSep/0302.html > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012JulSep/0288.html
I'll leave the translation of "IM protocol" to "user facing use case" as homework for the reader. It is trivial. My intent is to show a use case where one would use a persistent connection and a series of send/response messages that easily maps to WS. Instant Messaging is such a use case.