- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 22:40:27 -0700
- To: Ke-Fong Lin <ke-fong.lin@4d.com>
- Cc: Ekberg, Björn <Bjorn.Ekberg@sonymobile.com>, "public-sysapps@w3.org" <public-sysapps@w3.org>, "Nilsson, Claes1" <Claes1.Nilsson@sonymobile.com>, "Edenbrandt, Anders" <Anders.Edenbrandt@sonymobile.com>, "Isberg, Anders" <Anders.Isberg@sonymobile.com>, "Falk, Mattias" <Mattias.Falk@sonymobile.com>
On Apr 23, 2013 12:39 PM, "Ke-Fong Lin" <ke-fong.lin@4d.com> wrote: > > Hi Jonas, > > > It's still not clear to me how to use the localAddress/localPort arguments for TCPSocket and UDPSocket. > > What are the use cases for these options? > > Local address is needed to select which network interface to use. On mobile device, that would be WIFI, 3G, Bluetooth. Yup. So the question is what's the use case for, on a client side device, setting up a socket connection specifically from wifi, 3G or Bluetooth rather than the "default" connection? > >What does the "addressReuse" option do when constructing a TCPSocket? What is the use case? > > Re-use option is very important for UDP, this allows several applications to receive data from a multicast group (to use Bonjour for example). > But yes, you're right. It makes no sense for TCP sockets (streaming protocol). I'm not even sure you could do a setsockopt() on a TCP socket. > TCPSocket shouldn't have addressReuse. If it's only useful for UDP multicast, should it be part of joinMulticastGroup instead of the constructor? Sorry, I don't know UDP multicasting at all so I'll have to defer to others who do. > >There doesn't appear to be a way to upgrade an existing TCPSocket connection to TLS. Is that something you're still planning on adding? > > Yes, I'm working on it with Claes. Great! > >Feedback [1] from our team was that for TCPSocketServer "accept" is a better name than "connection" since "connection" was unclear if it meant "connecting" or "connected". One option is also simply "connect" since that's what's used by Web Workers [2]. > > "accept" will definitely ring a bell for those used to Berkeley socket accept() function :) > I've no strong opinion regarding naming but yes, "onconnect" would be a great name as it is indeed used by SharedWorker (web workers). Cool, I think "connect" gets my vote then. I'll check with others at mozilla and let you know the outcome. / Jonas
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2013 05:41:29 UTC