David Bruant wrote:
> On the other hand, on a 16-core processor (which doesn't exist yet, but
> is a realistic idea for the next couple of decades), the task could be
> executed faster with 16 workers.
>
Maybe you mean "hardware thread" instead of "core"? If so, the machine
I'm writing this mes
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
> We've considered firing it for each frame, but there is one problem. If
> people expect that it fires once per frame they will probably write scripts
> which do frame-based animations by moving things n pixels per frame or
> similar. Some
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:11:15 +0100, Andrew Scherkus
wrote:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 6:10 AM, Brian Campbell <
brian.p.campb...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
On Nov 5, 2009, at 1:17 AM, Andrew Scherkus wrote:
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 10:18 PM, Brian Campbell <
brian.p.campb...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
Hi,
As far as I can read from
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hixie-thewebsocketprotocol-54#section-5.2
the server should (or must?) accept requests starting with, say:
POST/some/resourceHTTP/1.0
or, even
/some/resource
Is a server expected to be this lenient?
Yuzo
