Re: [whatwg] Feature requests in WebSocket (Was: BWTP for WebSocket transfer protocol)

2009-10-04 Thread Ian Hickson
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

Re: [whatwg] Feature requests in WebSocket (Was: BWTP for, WebSocket transfer protocol)

2009-09-05 Thread Greg Wilkins
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

Re: [whatwg] Feature requests in WebSocket (Was: BWTP for WebSocket transfer protocol)

2009-09-04 Thread Wenbo Zhu
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

Re: [whatwg] Feature requests in WebSocket (Was: BWTP for WebSocket transfer protocol)

2009-09-04 Thread Jonas Sicking
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

Re: [whatwg] Feature requests in WebSocket (Was: BWTP for WebSocket, transfer protocol)

2009-09-04 Thread Greg Wilkins
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

Re: [whatwg] Feature requests in WebSocket (Was: BWTP for WebSocket transfer protocol)

2009-09-03 Thread Jeremy Orlow
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

Re: [whatwg] Feature requests in WebSocket (Was: BWTP for WebSocket transfer protocol)

2009-09-03 Thread Ian Hickson
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

Re: [whatwg] Feature requests in WebSocket (Was: BWTP for WebSocket transfer protocol)

2009-09-03 Thread Ian Hickson
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

Re: [whatwg] Feature requests in WebSocket (Was: BWTP for WebSocket transfer protocol)

2009-08-14 Thread Jonas Sicking
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

Re: [whatwg] Feature requests in WebSocket (Was: BWTP for WebSocket transfer protocol)

2009-08-14 Thread Jeremy Orlow
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 (

[whatwg] Feature requests in WebSocket (Was: BWTP for WebSocket transfer protocol)

2009-08-14 Thread Ian Hickson
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