On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 13:23:57 +0100, Olli Pettay <olli.pet...@helsinki.fi>
wrote:
On 3/25/10 12:08 PM, Niklas Beischer wrote:
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 10:21:10 +0100, Olli Pettay
<olli.pet...@helsinki.fi> wrote:
On 3/25/10 12:08 AM, Olli Pettay wrote:
On 3/24/10 11:33 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010, Olli Pettay wrote:
[snip]
I guess I'm unclear on whether bufferedAmount should return:
1. the sum of the count of characters sent?
(what would we do when we add binary?)
I believe this is actually what we want.
If web developer sends a string which is X long,
bufferedAmount should report X.
And when we add binary, if buffer which has size Y is
sent, that Y is added to bufferedAmount.
Though, this is a bit ugly too.
Mixing 16bit and 8bit data...
One option is to remove bufferedAmount,
and have just a boolean flag
hasBufferedData.
Or better could be that the API spec says that WebSocket.send()
converts the data to UTF-8 and bufferedAmount
indicates how much UTF-8 data is buffered.
Then adding support for binary would be easy.
And that way it doesn't matter whether the protocol
actually sends the textual data as UTF-8 or as
something else.
This way web developer can still check what part of the
data is still buffered. (S)he just have to convert
UTF-16 to UTF-8 in JS, when needed.
What about having bufferedAmount represent the number of bytes
(including overhead) buffered by the WebSocket,
The problem here is that how can the API describe what the
bufferedAmount actually is. And since the underlying protocol
may change, the values in bufferedAmount may change.
for flow control
purposes, and adding a new indicator (bufferedMessages) representing the
number of messages that are not fully pushed to the network? Since the
API is message based there is, besides flow control, little reason to
specify how much of a particular message has been sent, right?
Hmm, would it be enough to have just bufferedMessages, and remove
bufferedAmount.
-Olli
BR,
/niklas
The reason why I'd like it to work this way is that
IMO scripts should be able to check whether the data
they have posted is actually sent over the network.
-Olli
2. the sum of bytes after conversion to UTF-8?
3. the sum of bytes yet to be sent on the wire?
I'm not sure how to pick a solution here. It sounds like WebKit
people
want 3, and Opera and Mozilla are asking for 2. Is that right? I
guess
I'll go with 2 unless more people have opinions.
Just to clarify then, the two use cases we're trying to accommodate are:
a) The client wants to be able to limit the data sent over the wire to X
kb/s.
b) The client wants to make sure some earlier message(s) has been sent
before queuing a new one.
Is that correct, or are there any other use cases anyone had in mind?
--
Erik Möller
Core Developer
Opera Software
