On Fri, 4 Sep 2009, Wellington Fernando de Macedo wrote:
>
> Ian, do you intend to add any other features to the first version of
> WebSocket? If yes, which ones?
I was thinking of adding multiplexing, but after discussing this with a
variety of people, I'm leaning towards leaving the protocol a
WenboZhu wrote:
> While the concerns on the server-side are overstated, the analogy to http is
> also questionable ... The current protocol, being a *scoket* layer protocol,
> is in principle different than http, which is strictly a L7 RPC protocol.
Wenbo,
TCP/IP does not map well to OSI layer m
While the concerns on the server-side are overstated, the analogy to http is
also questionable ... The current protocol, being a *scoket* layer protocol,
is in principle different than http, which is strictly a L7 RPC protocol.
Is there any fundamental limitation for different UI components to shar
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 1:45 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> >
>> > How do you envisage multiplexing working? It's not clear to me what we
>> > could do that would be easier to handle than just having the script
>> > manually do the multiplexing at the applicati
Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>> > On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 3:45 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>>> > > On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>> > > What would the API look like?
>> >
>> > It seems like it could be done transparently to the web developer. If
>> > you
For the record, I'm perfectly happy with WebSockets not being made any more
complicated for v1 (i.e. no multi-plexing), but I don't think your arguments
against it are compelling at all, so I'm going to play devils advocate:
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > > What would the
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >
> > How do you envisage multiplexing working? It's not clear to me what we
> > could do that would be easier to handle than just having the script
> > manually do the multiplexing at the application layer. What would the
> > API look like? What would
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 3:45 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree that these are very interesting features. Especially
> > > connection multiplexing is something that I think is a good idea,
> > > for t
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 3:45 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> I agree that these are very interesting features. Especially connection
>> multiplexing is something that I think is a good idea, for the reasons
>> you've mentioned elsewhere in this thread (multiple
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 3:45 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >
> > I agree that these are very interesting features. Especially connection
> > multiplexing is something that I think is a good idea, for the reasons
> > you've mentioned elsewhere in this thread (
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
> I agree that these are very interesting features. Especially connection
> multiplexing is something that I think is a good idea, for the reasons
> you've mentioned elsewhere in this thread (multiple widgets on the same
> page).
How do you envisage m
11 matches
Mail list logo
